Oh, you guys, too?
Oh, my God.
That is so awesome.
This is never going to happen.
Yeah, right.
Well, this will be worth it.
You know, I have 250 slides, so I thought we would start our time.
So I'm going to have to talk really fast.
And if you blame, you'll miss it.
250 slides, he says.
Wow, that's a lot of slides.
It's not supposed to be routed back into the auditorium, you think.
This doesn't seem like a hard problem, right?
It's MIT.
Does anybody who is skilled in this particular area want to come and help out?
Pretty weak.
Oh, just from here to out.
Yeah, okay.
I'm not really sure what to say.
I thought I would flash it up really quick and see if I could catch it.
I didn't think they would have technical difficulties.
I apologize for this.
I thought I'd take some notes and see what he says and doesn't say.
Right now, I can't tell whether the New Zealand data is going to just be misrepresented or what the actual reason it's coming out for.
But I think it's worth paying attention to so that we can figure out exactly what is meant to happen here.
I don't ever really believe in whistleblowers and data leaks.
I think first and foremost, we have to assume it's a trap of some kind.
And again, we're playing into their solving their mystery, right?
Doing their math for them and then coming to a conclusion that they want us to come to.
And then coming to a conclusion that they want us to come to.
So just like the lab leak, I want to be very careful here and the fact that the misinformation super spreader.
Steve Kirsch is the one who's bringing this to light at MIT with such pomp and circumstance.
Makes me even more suspicious.
No, we didn't get on.
Didn't get on Kim Iverson today.
No, they don't have that sound.
Holy cow, it's really a joke here.
How's my sink, am I all right?
Wow, we really can't hear them.
He's students for open inquiry and we want to get the dissenters and the heterodox speakers over here because MIT has a real lack of that.
And now it is time to restore MIT back to the land of curiosity and to the land where academic and intellectual freedom can flourish.
So many people have been saying that there's a problem with Kirsch.
He's a fraud. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Let's see if that holds up tonight.
Welcome everybody, I am Adam Dang.
I am the captain of this enterprise.
I am a senior in mathematics and AI.
Thank you, as you can tell, I am not a specialist in AV equipment, so I do apologize that we had a little bit of problems there, but luckily it's all resolved.
This should be an auspicious omen.
Let's see what we can do here tonight.
So I'm very excited to present to you Spencer, my co-pilot.
Thank you everybody for being here. Thank you Steve for being here.
I'm Spencer Sinnerson.
I'm a freshman studying political science and management.
And so...
Political science and then MIT.
So it was what I was found to restore free expression and intellectual curiosity to the MIT campus.
That's the spirit of science.
A lot of scientific theories, like Darwin's evolution theory, was created.
They came to existence because scientists and theorists back in the days had the audacity to interact with heteronautical views.
They went against the status quo.
Darwin went against the theory of using this use that prevailed the world back in the days and a lot of scientific thinkers came out with breakthrough theories and inventions because that.
And that's why we're keen to restore this to MIT campus, the supposed epicenter of science and technology.
You might know about the MIT Free Speech Alliance and other groups like that that have been working to restore some semblance of normality back to campuses as a place where you can inquire about what you want and see if things hold up.
And one of our goals is we note that there is a lot of theory about what free speech can mean.
But there's not as much action on college campuses.
You rarely get the chance to really see these speakers on the would be fringed, discuss their ideas.
And that's what we're here tonight to do.
The main goals of the MSOI is to take the free speech theory and to give all the MIT community a dose of what it means to tackle intellectual heterodoxy and dissent.
So we are the action arm of those who want free speech.
And to that end, we're platforming distance and heterodoxical speakers who have lost their platforms in the mainstream, in academia, in this world of rampant censorship.
That's unacceptable.
And I think that when you look at the political organizations that have sprung up left wing right wing, maybe they have a certain issue as their cause.
That's one thing.
But we're MIT.
We are the greatest college on the planet.
So what do we do differently, right?
I think what we have as our advantage is a sense of curiosity.
You know, some people call us the goofy school.
And I'm goofy.
You know, I've done some things in my past.
And I think that's the spirit we want.
Ultimately, we're not here just to participate in the political divides or the questions of a zero, some game.
I think we're here to do more than that.
We're here to explore what can we achieve?
Where does our potential lie?
What is our purpose here?
So given the speakers that we've had, I think we're doing more than just, you know, I take this position on an issue and why that position is wrong.
We are also getting shot.
I wish I could pause this because I've just shocked at what this guy's saying.
How can we be the drivers of change?
Because it's all good if we have proclaimed leaders say they're going to do something for us, but one that usually never do it.
And two, what about us?
In our own lives, we got to be the change and we have to drive that forward.
And MSOI wants to make that happen.
We want to bring the ideas so that all of you can spark change in your own lives.
Wow, that is bizarre.
It doesn't sound like MIT.
So it becomes clear now that since the start of 2020 to now, the vaccination issue, the lockdown issue and the mandates have not been discussed.
In fact, they have been swept under the rug.
So, MSOI, we believe that this is a huge problem that has not been addressed at all.
People have just ignored it and said, oh, you know what, it's in the past.
Don't worry about it.
But this cannot happen.
It is a travesty to the people.
And thus, we declare as the MSOI that we condemn the censorship and the punishment of individuals who questioned the establishment narrative.
It's kind of late now, like finding your principles.
And this is especially true for the most recent destruction of our liberties, the COVID narrative.
Who is this guy?
No, we weren't allowed to talk about that.
We weren't allowed to question the lockdowns or the vaccines or the master any of that.
But tonight, this all changes.
Wow, I am.
At MSOI, we believe that medical dissidents have the right to speak their minds.
This is a pressure.
They cannot be censored because no matter what smears are thrown at them, anti-science, crank, altered crepitarian, or not knowing what they're talking about.
Signs, like I said, it's all about inquiring about the status quo.
It's about the spirit of open inquiry and creativity.
And so, so-called health authorities are never infallible.
And we have the right to speak our minds, interact with data, interact with all the stuff that's out there and form our own opinions.
And so, people have the right to question the status quo.
And I would also like to say something about the universities here who have been the most censored happy and the most draconian in their restrictions.
We at the MSOI, we denounce these elite institutions, especially in the academic sphere, the universities, and the governments, including MIT.
We got our lunch eaten by other colleges who are more happy to restore freedom.
He'll know I'm looking at you.
Anyways, I think that we need to have a reckoning about these organizations and the universities, which have been more interested in establishing and strengthening a censorship complex around COVID and the other medical topics.
This has been going on for far too long, and we are going to stop it.
And we're calling upon all organizations, government entities, private entities, everybody, who's engaged in sensorious practices, who's engaged in suppressing medical distance, suppressing free speech, to apologize for their malicious actions and intent.
And make no mistake, it's malicious.
We don't know how many of them are actually going to apologize if they're just going to say that this was all a big mistake and put it behind them.
But the one thing that we do know is we have to take power back into our own hands.
If we say no, then we don't need to worry about whether or not they feel guilty for their actions.
If we can take our power back as we are doing tonight, we will be in prime position to control our destinies and be free as we wish.
I know.
I mean, he's an alum of MIT, 1980.
He invented the optical mouse, so any gamers in here?
All right, we have a few.
You need to be thanking this man.
I own a privacy computer called the Libram 14.
The trackpad is a D minus, so I need to use the optical mouse, though.
Steve has been great on that side.
But there was really an organization, as I said, it's a bit tragic, really.
I mean, in February of 2022, Steve wrote to MIT, wrote to the chancellor, the president, and a few other key figures saying,
hey, you know, I donated $2.5 million to the auditorium.
I would like to come back and talk about why the COVID narrative has errors.
Nobody responded to him.
They all ignored him.
And there's one of two ways to get Steve to come to campus.
One of them is through a faculty sponsor, which none of them accepted.
The other one is to have a student group that will invite him in.
So we, as the MSOI, are very proud tonight to invite Steve Kirsch.
What is this?
Wow.
Okay, this works.
It doesn't work when it's not in the proximity of your mouth.
Okay.
Is it safe?
What the record level data says?
Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's skip that.
I'm an MIT grad, as you know, class of 78, two degrees from MIT.
Former our serial entrepreneur started a couple of billion dollar companies, which feature on 60 minutes,
written about 1500 articles on my sub-stack about vaccine safety.
And today I'm the world's number one misinformation spreader according to Google.
If you type in, if you type in misinformation super spreader into Google, I am the top hit.
So it is nice to be the best in the world.
It's something.
This wasn't, I have to admit, this wasn't what I planned on being the best in the world at.
But hey, you know, it's good to be the best in the world at something.
Now, the benefits for being a misinformation spreader, which means you are calling for data transparency
and you're just looking for the truth, is that you have lifetime bans on LinkedIn, medium Twitter,
two lifetime bans, Wikipedia, stripped of national carrying award on my Wikipedia page.
Friends abandon you, country club won't take you, corporate boards tell you to shut up or leave.
Your scientific advisory boards quits en masse and so on and so forth.
And the final thing is that MIT will not let you speak in your own auditorium
because they couldn't find a faculty sponsor.
You know, I remember that I was class of 78.
Do you remember this movie, National Lampard's Animal House?
And who can forget the scene in the stables?
It says we have an old saying in Delta, don't get mad, get even.
So this is my night.
This is the alternate title for today's talk, which is Revenge of the Nerd.
That nerd is me.
And the following presentation has been approved for no audiences by the CDC and the FDA.
It is rated M for misinformation.
And most of the material may be considered extremely unsafe.
Okay, I just wanted to make sure.
So if you're...
That's well done.
That's a nice slide.
Right.
Okay.
I like that.
So that's now...
We actually have some MIT undergrads in the audience.
So I'm going to teach a short class here, 6.123, which is Vaccine Safety 101.
This is my first lecture.
It's called the Basics.
There are seven slides and it's a 12-unit course.
Okay.
And I am Professor Kirsch.
Just testing it out.
Thank you very much.
This is the first slide.
Now, I'm not going to go through these slides in detail.
But the main thing here is that if you plot the deaths per day since injection of a vaccine,
and you look at the...
And the x-axis is...
That's the horizontal axis is the days after injection.
What should happen in a safe vaccine that is given to a finite cohort and then you look to see what happens
is that the line should slope downwards over time.
And the more elderly the population is, the greater the downward slope.
If it's a normal population, it'll slope at 0.8% per year is the downward slope.
Okay.
But it always slopes downwards.
And sometimes it can go up and down if there's something happening in the background and you're not
giving the vaccine over all time evenly.
Okay.
That's...
So, that's a safe vaccine.
Line slopes down.
It never slopes up.
It always slopes down.
This is the most important slide.
If you get this slide, we're done.
Okay.
This is the laws of physics.
If I drop this, it's going to fall down.
It never falls up.
I can drop this many, many times.
It will never go up.
It will always go down.
It's the same thing for people dying.
People die.
They don't suddenly spring from the dead.
Okay.
That's just the way it works.
This is physics.
We're at MIT.
Here's the cheat sheet.
This is the simple thing.
The line should always go down.
Get it?
Okay.
Good.
If...
By the way, these slides are posted on my sub-stack.
If you don't understand any of these slides, you can go back and study them.
Okay.
A safe and effective vaccine before and after.
If it really works and is effective, the line is slightly lower, but it still slopes down.
And the fluctuations for a particular virus will be smaller if the vaccine worked.
This is the sign of a vaccine, which is effective.
Now, this is going to be news to people who work at the CDC.
I'm working on slide two.
Nobody who works at the CDC understands this slide.
Can you believe that?
Yeah.
I can believe it.
Okay.
Now, there's something called the temporal healthy vaccine effect.
And it's gone after 21 days.
We've never seen it happen after 21 days.
I've asked these people who say, oh, healthy vaccine effect cannot last for years.
And I say, show me evidence of that.
They never do.
I've never seen the healthy vaccine effect happen for more than 21 days.
And what this is, is that they don't give the vaccine to people who are going to die tomorrow.
Or people who are going to die today after tomorrow because they're going to die.
And a lot of people, they know that they're going to die in the next 10 days.
So they don't bother giving a vaccine because why would you vaccinate them?
In this case, people would vaccinate people who were going to die in two days because they're afraid of catching COVID.
From someone who's going to die in two days.
So the healthy vaccine effect for COVID is actually smaller.
It's more compressed than the normal effect, but there is an effect.
Okay.
And you'll see that in the curves.
And the other thing you'll see in these curves is this red line here, which is running.
You run out of time to die.
Now, that doesn't mean that everybody's rushing to die before the time goes out.
It's because the studies always end in a certain time period.
You have your observation time window and then you give the dose over, say, the first year.
And then you look at the second year to see what happened.
So after 365 days, it starts going down because people simply can't live that long because the study was compressed.
Okay.
And the other thing you'll see in this is something called 50% of the people leaving for dose three.
So people who got shot two, a lot of these people were duped into taking shot number three.
Half the people, right?
So that's the, you know, it's like half the people have IQs under 100 and half.
Okay.
So anyway, so half the people, it turns out, went for dose three.
And so you can see that, so the line, if you looked at the desk per day,
it's going to start dropping as people go and leave the cohort.
And so if you're just plotting desk per day, it's going to go down by 50% if half the people leave.
Okay.
And then I'm going to slightly confuse you and talk about mortality rate.
Mortality rate is the desperate 100K person years.
So it's not per day, it's person years.
And so that curve tends to remain flat.
You have that healthy vaccine effect, but then you have a flat curve.
And then it starts getting noisy at the end because you're running out of man days and deaths.
And it just becomes erratic.
Okay.
So any questions?
Okay.
Great.
So we have no questions.
So I'm going to just move on.
We don't have time for questions, but we'll have time for questions after the talk.
So MIT professor Robert Langer did not want to see the data.
Oh, sorry.
MIT Institute professors.
This is, they're only like 12 Institute professors.
There are guys at the top of his class.
He has an H index of like 317, which is completely off the charts.
I mean, this guy is academically the smartest guy in the world.
Or, you know, one of the smartest guys in the world.
His papers have been more, you know, read by more people than virtually anyone.
I asked him, I said, do you want to see the data that I'm going to show tonight?
That I'm going to show all of you tonight.
And so I wrote him, and I left my phone number, and I wrote him about it maybe half a dozen
times, and I left phone calls, and the students visited his lab to make sure he knew about
it.
He did not respond.
Now, do you know why he didn't respond?
He had COVID.
No.
If he sees the data, he has a duty as a board member of Moderna to immediately stop to shots.
That's why these people, that's why these people will not, cannot, under any circumstance,
ever see what I'm about to show you today.
If you were to walk up to them and show them the data, they would like run the other way
or call the cops on you.
Okay.
They are not allowed to see this data because if they did, they'd have a fiduciary responsibility
to stop the shots.
Well, it's actually criminal liability is the more, is the more important thing.
He could be held criminally liable if they don't stop the shots once he knows that they're killing
people.
So, this is why none of these people ever want to see the data that I'm showing you.
This will never be shown at the CDC or FDA.
This will never appear in the New York Times.
This will never appear in any media.
No media will cover this because otherwise they're going to have to stop the shots.
So, it's just you people in the room and a couple of people watching on the live stream.
Now, remember the prep app only protects you from civil liability, not criminal liability.
This is why they can't afford to see any of this data that I'm showing you tonight.
Now, they basically have to act if they know that there are kill shots.
So, Moderna and Pfizer were asked by a prominent medical journalist if they wanted to see the
data and they said, no, we don't want to see any of the data.
That's the way it works.
Now, does anybody want to take over loading a phone mic?
Because I haven't seen tonight, I asked this earlier.
According to my meters, I haven't said pretty well.
Anybody?
I'm not peeking out on my hand.
I think it's him.
What?
We have a guy?
Are you serious?
You would.
Oh, you would.
Okay.
So, okay.
Well, I'm not great.
Okay.
So, I'm going to have you come up here after.
I'm going to do my presentation.
Oh, it's a challenge.
Explain it to us.
Sweet.
Okay.
Oh, boy.
Okay.
All right.
So, I'm going to show you some data from Medicare.
Medicare is the gold standard data.
And I'm going to show you this data that has never before been made public.
And it's the same time period for all these graphs.
We're looking at the same time period, the same population, the only thing that's different,
is the vaccine.
I wonder where this is.
Florida Medicare.
Florida Medicaid.
What is this?
Okay.
Where did he get this from?
This is a pneumococcal vaccine.
This is your typical unsafe vaccine.
I have never met a vaccine that was safe.
I'm still looking.
So, a pneumococcal, not a safe vaccine.
And the reason is that little dot up there.
Over my head, where on day zero, it kills a ton of people.
This may look like a small number, but this is basically a ton of people.
This means it is a very unsafe vaccine.
A safe vaccine is only supposed to kill somewhere on the order of one person per million shots.
This thing you can clearly see on day zero is killing a ton of people.
And in fact, the flu shots do the same thing.
And you know, so when we talk about, oh, a lot of seasonal death in the elderly, I wonder
if it's the flu shots causing the seasonal death in the elderly.
Nobody ever looks at that.
And I did a calculation.
And there are actually more people who die from the flu shot itself than who die from
the flu.
The vaccine is killing more people than the disease.
So anyway, this is pneumococcal.
It falls 11% over 365 days.
You can see it's a straight line.
It's just like I taught you in the earlier lecture.
See what I teach you is actually happens in practice.
It's even a Poisson distribution.
6041, right?
So these dots have effectively this noise.
So if you look at the standard deviation and calculate standard deviation, you'll find
that it's the same as a Poisson distribution because the Poisson distribution, the variance
is equal to the mean.
You all knew that, right?
Okay.
Good.
How many people knew that?
Okay.
Good.
Awesome.
Okay.
So now this vaccine is a very unsafe vaccine.
The slope goes up monotonically for 365 days straight.
This is unprecedented.
I have a leaker in HHS who has never seen anything like this before in her life.
And she does this every single day.
This is like if I were to drop this, it would go up.
It's not supposed to happen.
What this means is that it means the vaccines are killing people.
They're not helping people.
They are killing people.
All you need is this one chart.
You don't need a control group.
You don't need to adjust for confounders.
You don't need any of that stuff.
This one chart is the death shot for this vaccine.
And it has all been in plain sight in Medicare since the beginning of the vaccination program.
It's just that nobody wants to look at the Medicare data and the CDC hides it from site.
Going up 26% instead of going down by a 5% percent or more for the Medicare audience.
Well, that's the COVID vaccine.
There's a net difference of a 31% over one year period.
That is astronomical.
This is a killing machine that should be stopped immediately.
And they've had the data the whole time.
This is Medicare.
This is the population that was supposed to be protected by the shots.
And instead, the shots are killing people.
There is no doubt about this.
It didn't save anyone.
It killed people.
No doubt about it.
None whatsoever.
It should be labeled generally regarded as unsafe.
G-R-A-U.
That acronym doesn't even exist for vaccines.
Because they're always safe, even though they're not.
But these things should be, the COVID vaccines especially, but the other vaccines as well,
should be grow generally regarded as unsafe.
And Harvey Rich said, well, I'd like to see the other shots as well.
And so Harvey, Harvey Rich is a famous epidemiologist, he's one of the top epidemiologists in the
United States as well as the world.
And so I showed him the choice.
He says, OK, I'm convinced.
So this just shows, this was not a fluke.
This happens on dose one, dose two and dose three, and I don't have a data for dose four.
It goes up, W-T-E-F, what the crap.
It goes up.
It's supposed to slope down.
Goes up.
And I wrote this.
I found this out back February 25th, 2023.
I wrote an article.
I said, game over.
Medicare data shows the COVID vaccines increase your risk of dying.
I mean, this is like not new news.
February.
What are we in now?
I mean, it's almost like a year later.
These people don't read my sub-stack.
You know, my sub-stack is, if you try to click on my sub-stack, if you work at the
CDC and you try to click over on my sub-stack, it says this web page is regarded.
It is unsafe.
I mean, I'm not kidding.
So do you know why they never spotted any of these safety signals?
Because, yeah, I mean, well, you know, they're looking for something that kills you immediately,
right?
Because most of these vaccines, they kill you immediately.
You know, like these pneumococcal, right?
It kills you immediately.
And then it's slope goes down.
So they're looking for, did it kill you in the first week or two weeks?
No.
Must be safe.
They're looking for that.
Joe Latipo in Florida did this self-control case study, case series.
He's looking comparing the deaths, like in the first, like, I don't know, was it 30
days or whatever versus the next 30 days.
And he's saying, oh, you know, if it really works, it's going to be lower in the first
30 days.
And he found it was.
And so he said, wow, this thing is safe.
No, Joe, slope goes the wrong way.
That's the way the slope goes.
It's just killing people in a way that we had never seen before, unprecedented way.
That's why they were looking for this.
And that's why they never found this, okay?
And I'm a guilty of this because I did something called a ratio analysis and I was confused
because, man, these people, I looked at how they were dying.
And I said, well, if it's unsafe vaccine, then if I look at the time to die for anyone,
if they die at a certain day, I want to find out, like, where in the dates that they
could die did they fall?
There were more than half of them dying in the first half versus the second half of the
time period left to die.
Little hard to explain here, but basically it was weird.
I was seeing that, wow, these vaccines look safe.
And so even I was fooled because I didn't realize that the curve was weighted such that you
were dying six months to a year after you got the shot, and that's how it killed people.
So even I was fooled.
Now this is the most damaging Medicare curve I have seen so far.
Now these are people who got exactly two shots, not three shots, not four shots.
They got exactly two shots.
And so the reason why this is so deadly is because what happens is, remember I taught
you earlier in our course, I said, you know, if you abandon, if 50% abandon for the next
dose, the thing's going to go down and it's going to drop to 50%.
So you can see this baseline level here, baseline two, that is at 200 deaths per day.
So that means because 50% left, that means the baseline, original baseline is 400, okay?
You just double 200, because you have twice so many people.
And look, all those things, they're above the baseline from like, you know, it starts
above the baseline and keeps going higher and higher and higher.
There's no doubt, once again, confirming it.
And of course, my favorite is the anecdotes.
You know, the scientists always say, oh, anecdotes, the plural of, of, anecdote is
anecdotes and it's not data, bullshit, okay?
In a world where information is being withheld or distorted, anecdotes are often the best
source of truth.
Let me give you an example.
Jay Bonner, 57 year old high tech executive, 15 friends died unexpectedly post facts.
All the dead were vaxed.
Prior to the vaxed rollout, Jay had one unexpected death in over 30 years.
And four of the 15 people who died died within 24 hours of a vaccine and three of the four
were under 30.
Within 24 hours of the vaccine, like, hello?
Now let's do your, your Poisson survival function on essentially, it's 14 because it's
of the, the way the Poisson survival function works.
So it's 14 comma like 0.1.
So expecting 0.1 in a period and then you got 14, which is 7 times 10 to the minus 28,
which means this is not something that we didn't get, just get unlucky here, okay?
There's something going on, the vaccine killed his friends, guaranteed.
That's the only way this can happen.
Now the other thing is that 15 of his friends died from the vaccine and zero his friends died
from COVID, but COVID is supposed to kill way more than the vaccine.
I mean, the vaccine is supposed to be around here compared to the, you know, COVID.
Well, he's got the, he's got the reverse.
Well, okay, but so you can do this sort of, the Poisson, uh, cumulative distribution function
and essentially look at it the other way.
Essentially, you were expecting at least 15 COVID deaths that he should have gotten
to match and he got zero or the chances of that, he had pretty small.
So essentially what this tells us is, mathematically, from just this one anecdote,
there's no way that it, that it couldn't be anything less than the cure was far worse
than the disease, okay?
This vaccine was far worse than COVID.
It created deaths, it didn't save anyone.
And you know, the thing is that I always trust the math because the math never lies.
Poisson distributions never lie.
It's not like science.
Science is, you know, people can say, well, you know, I think this and the bad.
We got the theory and the changes.
Poisson distributions never change.
You know, you can't, can't beat that.
Okay, now there's this famous quote from Eric Rubin, New England.
He's the editor-in-chief, New England Journal of Medicine.
He's on the FDA committee.
He's an adjunct professor of immunology and infectious disease at Harvard University.
This guy's an expert, right?
Can't get any better than this.
We're never going to learn about how safe the vaccines are until we start giving it.
You know, he said this, this is not, I'm just like, not out of context,
this is legit stuff.
And he's right because the clinical trials are too small to find these vaccine effects
that happen in smaller numbers than would be detected in these, these trials.
So we now have the safety data, right?
And one small problem, of course, is that normally in public health has ever taken,
ever looked at it very seriously, right?
They've never released the record level data for any vaccine.
No country has ever done that in the entire world.
No state has ever done that.
Nobody has released the record level data.
So we could look at it, we couldn't look at it either because it's not there.
We can't, they're not looking at it.
They could like it, but they're not.
And they're not releasing it to us.
So we can't look at it either.
And that's me.
Oh, well, I was an unhappy camper until I got this data.
And then I was like, singing ding dong, the witch is dead after I got the data.
So nobody can ever figure out the ground truth about any vaccine or any pharmaceutical
because they're always hiding the data.
And I'm the guy, you know, calling for data transparency, but nobody's listening to me.
So all that changed for me on November 9th, 2023.
I have a Wasabi server and somebody uploaded the data to my Wasabi server in the cloud.
And it was a whistleblower in New Zealand.
He's, he works for the Ministry of Health.
And I know his name.
I'm one of the very few people in the world.
He has revealed his identity too.
He uploaded the data.
I know that, I know he's legit.
I know he works at the Ministry of Health.
And I know that data is legit because I examined the individual data records themselves
to verify that the data is legit and I ran a whole series of statistical tests on the
data and the data is legit.
This was also released just a day earlier by the people involved in this.
And they called it Operation M-O-A-R, the mother of all revelations.
Because this record level data has never been released by anyone ever before.
This is the first time in world history where we can actually see the record level data
released from a country.
That is stunning.
And now we know why.
They don't release it.
Now, would you like to see that video?
It's an hour video.
But, and it was posted to YouTube, but in less than five minutes, less than five minutes
YouTube took down the video because it violated community standards.
The community standards say you shall not speak about the truth, about the vaccine.
You have to lie.
You have to tell people it's safe and effective.
If you don't do that, you're violating community standards and they remove your video from
YouTube even though you're trying to save lives.
I think we just have to watch.
Because YouTube is not interested in saving lives.
They are interested in promoting a false narrative that is killing people.
It's definitely Geraldo or something like that.
Anyone who works for YouTube should be ashamed of themselves and they should quit their job.
It's 2024.
And if you want to know what I really like big deal, talk to me afterwards.
You can watch it on rumble.
Okay.
And these slides, all of them have hyperlinks so you can check it out.
These slides were posted to my sub stack at six p.m. when I started the doc.
So you can download a PDF version.
You can watch it on Google and so forth.
So we now have the data.
We have the data that nobody was supposed to see.
And it's now available for anyone in the world to download from my wasabi server.
And not only that, today only I am throwing in for free.
For free the data analysis tools that you need to be able to analyze this for yourself
in five minutes.
So you don't have to take my word for it because I'm just a misinformation super spreader.
You can do it yourself.
You get the original data which we have obfuscated so that we don't get into trouble, right?
It's all HIPAA compliant.
But we preserved all of the fidelity of the data so that we have shifted things such
that the statistics are identical even though no record matches anything about any of the
people in it.
So we preserve privacy but we also expose the truth.
Okay.
So this is record level data and that means there's an individual record for every person.
It's official government data.
This is gold standard data.
This is ground zero data and the ministry of truth.
Oh, sorry, the ministry of health and New Zealand cannot say that this is fraudulent
data or that this is not the data from their database.
If they do that, they will be digging themselves into a hole which will lead to criminal prosecution
of the people that lie about this.
This is not something they are going to be able to tell a fact checker and claim that
this was not real data and it doesn't get any better than this.
I told you, revenge of the nerd.
You don't want to mess with an MIT electrical engineering master of science degree.
You know, this is what MIT is all about is to enable people like me who are critical
thinkers to go and use the skills that I learned in MIT, 6-0-4-1.
I had algebraic as my teacher and actually apply those skills to solving real world problems.
And so for a professional misinformation spreader such as my self, this data is the
Rosetta Stone.
It unlocked all the mysteries.
I thought maybe the Medicare data was confounded somehow.
I mean, it's like, well, all these people are telling me it's safe and effective and
I'm crazy and all this, no, I'm not at all.
I we can statistically prove now whether a vaccine is safe or not from record level data.
And the results are objective and easy to interpret.
Does slope go up or to go down?
It's really easy, up or down.
It's not that complicated.
Now, have you ever wondered why it's always kept hidden, right?
It's basically that New Zealand record level data shows about the COVID vaccine.
It's not pretty, you know, 13 million people have been killed worldwide.
That's what it shows.
13 million people were killed worldwide by the COVID vaccines who were the perpetrators
who were the governments, you know, President Biden.
He's got 675,000 Americans blood on his hands.
And they did it for no benefit.
It wasn't like it saved any lives either.
It didn't save any hospitalizations.
No benefit whatsoever.
With one exception, it did provide immunity for the pharmaceutical companies.
That is the only immunity it provided is for the pharma companies.
The shots mean it more likely you would die if you were elderly, which is the very population
that the shots were designed to protect.
Now a safe vaccine, as I said, should have this, you know, flat curve that goes downwards.
This is actually the flu shot.
Look at that.
We see the same pattern for its day zero deaths and the flu shots aren't sloping down like
they should.
They should start to sloping down on day 21.
Look at those flu shots.
Now that's a problem, but, you know, nobody looks at the flu shots, they all assume safe
and effective like, you know, like our pneumococcal.
That's what it should look like, except for that one little whoops, not safe dot.
In fact, if we could get rid of that one little dot in the pneumococcal, it'd actually
be a safe vaccine.
I don't know if it works, but it passes the safe test.
It looks like a safe vaccine.
COVID vaccine, EPIC fail.
This is the New Zealand data.
Nobody's ever seen this before.
This is the estimated baseline.
This is what people should be normally in this cohort dying at and look at what happens.
It goes up.
And then it goes down.
Now this is averaged over five doses, okay?
So this is the average effect.
So each dose is going to have a different response curve.
We saw what the response curve was for dose one.
It went up for 12 months.
So this is the combined response curve from the New Zealand data showing you what happens.
And it is not pretty.
It is killing people.
And at the end, when we get to time 80 weeks since the shot, we're starting to get into
noise because we run out of data.
We run out of time to die, essentially.
So the numerator becomes small, the denominator becomes small, and that creates these large
errors.
Because zero divided by zero is either zero or it's infinity.
So could anything be happening in the background to explain this?
Because this is what, you know, people wonder, well, maybe there's some explanation.
For, you know, things going up and open up for 365 days monotonically.
Maybe there is.
There's no possible way.
This is with a silent F.
No possible way that that could be the case.
And I have looked at this thing.
I have my dashboard.
It's in the V3 spreadsheet here in the dashboard.
You see the dashboard.
The upper graphs are the independent variables.
Y axis, of course, is the dependent variable.
And I look at the actual mortality rates for the four different independent variables.
And then below, I actually show the number of deaths.
So you can see whether you're going to have confidence in the data above.
So with these eight charts, you can tell exactly what's going on in my dashboard.
And then I spend hours changing the variables.
I say, well, let's look at those three.
Let's look at those four.
Let's look at under 60.
Let's look at over 60.
Lots of interesting stuff there.
So under 60-year-olds, what we see is a flat death card.
It looks like a safe vaccine for under 60.
It's not.
But we just don't have enough data to get the resolution on that.
And there's that data anomaly at the very beginning because of the properties of the
data that we got.
We only got people who are vaccinated.
And we only got it when they got their first vaccine.
And so people ramped up.
We didn't get a nice curve that starts on a specific time.
So that's why we have that data strangeness there.
And then 80 to 90-year-olds, you can see the slope goes up.
OK.
So if you're elderly, you don't want to get these shots.
And if you're a young person, you don't want to get the shots either because we just don't
have enough resolution to show you just because we don't have enough young people dying.
But it shows as a control group because it says that we got the right calculation because
we're getting a constant death rate for the young.
Because the young are less affected by this vaccine.
The vaccine primarily kills elder people.
And that's why we got this constant rate.
So we have confidence.
This gives us confidence in our tools that the tools worked.
And also the data is correct, that there's nothing wrong.
We would have seen something weird if any of these things were broken.
So it's another quality control thing that you can look at.
And so there are artifacts and we talked about that.
So here's the killer.
Everybody says, oh, Steve, you're a misinformation spreader.
And you're an engineer and you're not a doctor.
And you don't know statistics.
OK.
All right.
You know whatever.
So here's a guy who knows statistics.
This guy is the worst enemy for the health authorities.
This guy, Norman Fenton, is a professor of statistics and information risk and information
management in Queens, Mary University of London.
And he is the only guy in the world who discovered that the UK data was bogus.
And he wrote a letter to the UK Office of National Statistics saying you're wrong.
Your stats are wrong.
And they said you're right.
So this guy is the biggest enemy of the state because he's a true teller.
And he understands math.
There you go.
And it was acknowledged by the ONS.
Nobody else in the world has those credentials.
So this guy is the top dog.
And he said, there is now no doubt the vaccine is increasing the mortality rate of older
people, the very population it was meant to serve.
So you don't have to take my word for it anymore, folks.
Norman Fenton has said it.
And nobody can challenge that guy.
Nobody in the world.
That's why nobody will debate him.
Even better, Harvey Rich has an H index of 110.
There are very few people in the world with an H index of over or anywhere close to 110.
What this means is that you have published 110 papers that have 110 citations or more.
This is asymptotically harder and harder to achieve as the numbers go up.
It's easy to achieve an H index of 6 or 7.
And like what I have, it's very hard to get into the hundreds, very few people in the
world ever get into the hundreds.
And if he wrote on more popular subjects, his H index would be even higher.
This guy is one of the top epidemiologists in the world.
And he's also one of the top epidemiologists, of course, in the United States.
And what he said, in way too many words, because this is how they talk, you know, if there
was a mass shooting and everybody died, the epidemiologists would say, well, let's look
at confounders and we have to have the medical history of everybody who died and, you know,
let's run some analysis, Cox's regression, you know, survival analysis, hazard ratio
analysis on these people and, you know, we can't really say for sure whether they were
killed by the gunman, you know, I mean, this is how they talk, okay.
What he said is, you've made a very strong case.
In other words, your case is airtight, I'm going to translate for you.
He says, appreciably increase mortality rates, okay.
What he means is mortality rates are off the charts, but I have to say, I have to tone
it down.
And then he says, I was not aware of actual evidence that the increased mortality that
you've been shown has a different cause.
In other words, it's a slim dunk, it was the vaccine, but I just can't say that, okay.
This is, this is, I hope that translation was helpful from science to, you know, what they
really mean, because that's, that's the way it goes.
Yes, he has to talk in funny language like that, because otherwise his peers say, no,
you can't say that, okay.
So the question is by how much?
And so we can, we can now use this New Zealand data to make that calculation.
And when I did that, I found about, on average, for all the doses, 216 excess deaths per
hundred k person years.
And if you assume that there are normally two doses of vaccine per year, because everybody's,
you know, upping, getting it every six months, this is, this is a crude estimate, okay.
So it turns out that if you do that and you realize two doses per person year and do the
math, the answer is one excess death per thousand doses.
So if there were 675 million doses given in the US, that means 675,000 people died in
the US.
If there are 13 billion doses given worldwide, it means 13 million people died worldwide,
and they were killed by the vaccine.
I see we lost our MIT students, sorry.
Yep, got to go, okay, yeah, yeah, okay, we, okay.
Right, we've got to later, okay, the, um, the killed estimate, 13 million people worldwide,
675,000 Americans, ethical skeptic, looked at survey data, estimated 1.39 million excess
deaths in the US, far larger than I, so he used a different method.
And the same thing, of course, is happening in other countries.
A dentist ranked court estimated, not 13 million people died, but 17 million people died.
So he's getting the same numbers.
We're basically in the same ballpark, we're basically kind of rearranging dentures on
Titanic.
The UK ONS data, if you look at that, the AC, the all-cause mortality significantly higher
in the vaccinated for 20 consecutive months, pretty stunning.
This is, this data has been out there.
And if you, if you plot it, you'll see that, look at that upward slope, upward slope over
time.
So as people are getting these vaccines, they're dying at a higher and higher rate over time.
UK ONS has never plotted this.
Somebody who basically thinks I'm wrong, sent this to me and I said, great, I'm going to
be using this slide in my presentation because it shows the upward slope and it slows upward
and then it slows down just like you saw in the New Zealand data.
And look what happened in the Philippines, backstests were five times the COVID-19 deaths.
Okay, and the Philippines excess deaths skyrocket right after the vaccine went out.
There was nothing, no excess deaths prior to the vaccine and look what happened in the
Philippines.
They have an investigation going now.
And this is from, from my friend Ben at US mortality and he wrote on Twitter, it's as
clear as it gets.
Flat line, in terms of excess deaths, they roll out the vaccine and voila, man, it just
peeks right up there, doesn't it?
And of course, I did some surveys of my readers and found that the vaccine killed three and
a half times more Americans than the COVID virus.
So this is all consistent with the data you've seen before.
You can do your own surveys on Twitter, sounds too hard to believe, but, you know, this is
the result of the survey that I did.
And the thing about my followers is that they're pretty much unvaccinated and their family
studies are unvaccinated too.
So this is their vaccinated, and this was asking about a lost family member due to COVID or
the vaccines.
And these people are under vaccinated, right, because they're my followers.
They don't believe in vaccines.
So they're under vaccinated and yet look at the numbers and they have no incentive to
lie on this.
Here's the United States Medicare.
We saw this before, slow upwards.
This is the Maldives.
I have record level data from the Maldives.
Same thing.
Times up after you give the shot.
Climes up.
Oh, and this is my favorite, Israeli data.
This is from the Israeli Ministry of Health.
So let's look at the baseline calculation for Israel.
How many people die in Israel a day?
It's 28.4 people died per day in Israel.
This is, I asked Bart, because I wanted to have a neutral source, and Bart is very what
we call a blue pill.
Bart thinks the vaccines are safe, okay?
So if you do a Bart Korean, it'll say, you know, about the vaccine.
And here are the results of breakdown in terms of the age group.
So 65 plus, those are the people who are more likely to die.
It's 83.7%, but that's as of 2023.
So we're going to take it by 83%, 28.4 deaths is basically around an estimate of 23.5 deaths
per day.
That's what the red line represents.
Look what happens in the first 60 days in Israel.
This is record level data from Israel summarized by the Israeli Ministry of Health.
This has been publicly available for a long time on the internet.
Look what happens to the death count in Israel.
And look what happens in the first seven months after dose two is given.
The peak is 3.8 times from the baseline, and nobody notices except for me.
This has been in public view since March 7th at 2023, when MIT professor Redzef Levy posted
it on Twitter.
Nobody cares how many people the vaccine kills or injures.
The medical community does whatever they're told to do.
They are incapable of independent thought, and this is proof of it.
It does not matter how many people die.
If the medical community is told by the CDC that the vaccines are safe, the vaccines
are safe, and it doesn't matter how many people have to die, the vaccines are safe, and they
will continue to recommend them, otherwise they will be stripped of their licenses.
They don't want to lose their job, and they don't want to lose their board certifications,
and so they remain silent while the killing happens, and even the whistle blowers.
I get these messages saying, so and so, yeah, they're seeing all this stuff, but they don't
want to go on record because they need their job, so they're keeping their mouth shut.
Dr. Pete McCulloch didn't keep his mouth shut.
He's one of my heroes, he's one of the top cardiologists in the world, and he just had
his board certification revoked for saying that the COVID vaccines are killing people.
He had his board certification revoked because he told the truth.
Here's the letter telling him, unless he wins his appeal, his board certification so he
can practice medicine is revoked because he has been saying the truth.
That's why people don't speak out.
Here's another courageous, this US Navy medical officer spoke out, heart failure is
up by 973% in the military.
That is, if that's a train wreck, I mean, the words cannot describe this.
So they tell their superiors, and the superior says, okay, you know, no problem, you know,
this will continue to give the shots.
They don't change, they do whatever they're told, it doesn't matter how many people need
to die.
Now, if this, this is, there are two figures here, once the top showing what actually happened,
okay, the other figure below it is what was supposed to happen if the vaccines worked.
See the difference, big difference, the debate's over.
I'm going to, I guess we can just check in here to see how we're doing on the polls
because we asked if the COVID vaccines are safe and we, if you voted before and you want
to change your vote, you can do so now.
The polls are open and I'm going to flip over here and see how we're doing.
Maybe some people, I've convinced people the vaccines are safe.
So let's present here and it looks like we, we got some people on our side, but we got
3% leaning safe now, isn't that interesting?
Oh, people are changing.
Oh, okay.
So we're moving, we're, we're still got some, some stragglers there, okay.
So I'm going to flip off of this, let's go back and I'm doing my best.
I'm trying to show the data.
Maybe they're waiting to download the data so they can see it themselves.
Okay.
So my opposition doesn't want to talk about it at all, the $10 million offers to get them
to show up here, you know, Langer was offered 10 million, I donate 10 million to MIT, wouldn't
show up for that.
You know why?
And he could have named a team of people to have appeared in his place, instead he chose
to ignore it and he didn't even give me the courtesy of a response.
I went to Moderna, I went to the, because I'm in the press, I'm a journalist, so I contacted
the press liaison, I left a message on her cell phone, I know who she is, I left many
messages on her cell phone saying, hey, do you want to defend your vaccine?
And the answer was, nothing, no response, just as you expected, you know what these
are, crickets, that's what I got, 100K reward.
I even offered any scientist in the world, 100K to come here and if you convinced people
you were right, you didn't win the 100K, nobody wanted to challenge me live.
And I even opened it up to the anti-antibaxers, so these are the people who say that I'm
wrong.
And I said, if any of you want to come here and challenge me live, I'm opening up the
offer to them and none of them wanted to reply.
And so I wrote Pierre Cori a message saying, it's so expensive to find someone to debate
you nowadays, isn't it?
And he wrote back agreed.
I mean, that's stunning.
Now, if the CDC was honest, here are the ads that they should be running.
COVID-19 vaccines increase her risk for infection serious disease and death.
We made a mistake.
We shouldn't have recommended it.
People got the shot.
Sorry about that.
Where is the apologies?
It should say all vaccines are unsafe and Andrew Wakefield was right.
And I hope I will live long enough to see this ad being promoted by the CDC.
I may have to live to a thousand years old before I see that.
Okay, so the New Zealand data, it's 4 million records, 33% of all vaccine records in New
Zealand.
There are 12 million vaccine records.
It's vaccinated people only dead or alive.
So anybody who got a vaccine, if they died, it's recorded, if they're living, and I personally
authenticated all of this, and this is my favorite.
Even the most local supporters of the vaccine can see that the New Zealand data is highly
accurate.
So here it is, folks, it's just the real truth.
It doesn't get here.
We go than this.
The real truth.
My sort of like arch nemesis that if I go into the truth, we can't even get one word.
He's like, what about a sweet, you know, and he will not let you talk.
But I caught him in a tweet.
He said New Zealand tracked data very accurately with a capital V.E.R.1.
So this guy is basically saying that data is legit.
There's nothing better than this.
This is from the guy who's promoting the vaccine.
He's admitting the New Zealand data is they tracked it very accurately.
You don't get any better than this, folks.
This is as good as it gets.
Now, here's what the headlines are saying.
New Zealand records the biggest increase in registered deaths in 100 years.
Alarming acceleration in New Zealand.
Biggest deaths, latest official figures of 70% on last year.
Does that sound like a safe vaccine?
60 year olds fail.
This is the New Zealand data over time, death rate over time for dose two, dose three and
dose four.
We have less info on dose four.
For seven year olds, dose two, dose three, dose four.
This is when COVID started in New Zealand, though, that's the problem.
They didn't have COVID before this, according to that.
It was two dose three, dose four.
It's really a problem.
All ages, dose two, dose three, dose four.
The curve should be flat.
Does anybody think those curves are flat?
Okay.
Because if you did think the curves are flat, there was a job for you in the CDC, in the
safety department.
They are looking for people just like you, if you thought they were flat.
And then we have our sanity check where we looked at calendar months, and it's a
flat line for people under 60.
So was it caused by the vaccine?
You know, because they always say, oh, it's a confounder and we have to look at 60 different
variables.
We have to look at the ages.
We have to look at whether they have diabetes.
We have to look at whether they have heart disease, no, no, you don't need to do any of
that.
There's no other viable alternative.
It meets all the bad for tilt criteria.
Nothing else could cause such a change.
Here are the five red for tilt criteria, and it meets the consistency, strength of
association, specificity, temporal relation, and biologic plausibility.
In other words, is it plausible that we could massively increase the death rate if we injected
you with a poison?
The answer is yes.
That could do it.
That could massively increase it over time.
I mean, you know, that's what it's about.
Big picture, massive increase in all-cause mortality.
This is Robert Malone.
The...
No, it's not.
He's credited as inventing the technology behind these MRAs.
That's Danny Rancor.
And he has been a vocal critic of these vaccines, even though he has patents on the underlying
technology.
And he says, basically, it's not 14 million lives saved like they projected.
Wow.
But over 17 million dead from the mRNA COVID vaccine.
That one, Robert Malone, said interesting.
Another Twitter quote, quote, I'm going to skip, go fast here, because I'm getting short
of time.
This is from...
Chris Martin, he's a gold figure.
And these are of malignant neoplasm of the breasts.
In other words, cancer of the breast, cancer of the brain, blah, blah, blah.
And you can see how these things are going up dramatically after the vaccine rollout.
And embalmers, it's totally upside down.
Embalmers used to rarely see clots.
It was like 10 or 15 percent.
Now they rarely see someone without a clot who dies.
It's the other way around.
It's like 80 percent have clots.
The world has turned upside down.
And the CDC, of course, will say that there's no evidence of harm because they refuse to
investigate or view any of these adverse event data that is found by these people.
And there are...
So the bottom line is the four facts you need to know about the COVID vaccine.
It increases your risk of infection.
It will not do anything to your risk of hospitalization from COVID.
It is complete...
It's a zero on that.
It will increase your risk of death from COVID, and it will also increase your risk of death
from all cosmortality.
Who would take a shot like this?
There's probably...
There's one person in the audience who would, but most people shouldn't.
Nobody should be getting any of these shots.
Nobody.
There's no...
Like, kids aren't dying.
Now, here's the thing.
Why aren't we told this?
It's a systemic defect.
The CDC does not have the record level data.
So they don't get the vaccination records coming in from the states.
So they cannot do a cohort time series analysis like I did because they don't know when people
were vaccinated.
All they know is when people died.
They don't know the dates when individual people die, and when those people who died
were vaccinated.
The CDC cannot do the analysis, they don't have the data, and they don't want to ask
for the data either, because if they ask for the data, then I could FOIA it, and I would
know.
So the CDC basically says, nope, we don't want to know, but the vaccine is safe.
Trust us.
And so the states...
Now the states have the record level data, but they don't do the analysis because why
should they?
The CDC says it's safe.
So they got the records, but they don't look at them.
It's a catch-22.
Nobody basically analyzes the data.
It's all, you know, this systemic defect.
So infection, we have a paper from the Cleveland Clinic, which is one of the top places in
the world, medical organizations in the world, and it shows that if the more recently you
got a vaccine, the worse off you are.
You are better to be under vaccinated to protect you from COVID.
And in fact, there's another chart that shows that every time you get a vaccine, it increases
your risk of getting COVID.
And that's in the peer-reviewed, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was not revoked,
was not retracted, thank you.
Here's another paper.
This is in Java.
This is my favorite paper.
One of my favorite...
Probably my favorite paper of all time.
It's a research letter, April 6, 2023.
This is from a top epidemiologist inside the VA.
And this guy is an H-index of like 77.
I mean, he's...
This guy's a smart guy.
And he's doing his study and he's showing, hey, let's look at the...
I'm going to do...
I'm going to look at people hospitalized for COVID versus people hospitalized from the
flu, and I'm going to compare these groups and I'm going to see how they do in terms
of death.
So they said, this is my baseline.
And so he looked at the baseline characteristics of people who are admitted to the hospital
for flu and people who are admitted to the hospital for COVID.
And he says, look, these cohorts are very, very similar.
Their ages are similar.
Their comorbidities are similar.
And look, even their vaccination status is similar.
Very similar groups.
So now, let me do the experiment.
Now that I've shown you that my groups are very similar, you see the problem here?
The groups aren't supposed to be similar if you got hospitalized for COVID versus Devax.
So if the flu and the COVID vaccines protected against hospitalization, you should see a
dramatic difference between the groups.
This is what it should look like, and I'm making these numbers up, but the point is there
should be this dramatic difference between the cohorts.
And there isn't, there isn't, which means that the flu vaccine doesn't protect against
infection or hospitalization, zero benefit.
And it also means the COVID vaccines don't protect against infection and hospitalization.
This is not zero, ladies and gentlemen, we've known this for years, those two, those three,
those four, whatever it is, it's new for me, it's new for a lot of us, but the smallest
impact was for the, if they got a recent booster, zero.
So, and when you look at in practice, the protection against death is less than the net
protection from hospitalization.
It's always true that the biggest, the biggest effect are the protection from infection, and
then it's a smaller amount for hospitalization and then even a smaller amount for death.
So when the net benefit of the first two or zero, there's no room for a benefit, it has
to be smaller than zero, the only thing smaller than zero is zero.
So this one paper basically proves that there's no benefit from the COVID vaccine or the flu
vaccine.
And it's gold standard data from the VA.
So I asked the author, I said, you should publish this as another research note to say,
hey, I missed this, sorry about that, but the flu vaccines and COVID vaccines don't
work.
He said he didn't have time to write it up, he didn't have time to write it up, he didn't
have time to write it up, he nice guy, but he didn't have time to write it up.
Isn't that amazing?
Isn't that astonishing?
The most astonishing thing I've seen.
And then of course there's death, death from COVID.
So we can't tell from this day, because it's all caused mortality data, whether this thing
actually makes you less likely to die from COVID, there might have been a benefit.
But we have the US nursing home data and it shows that the COVID vaccine had no difference
at all in terms of your, if you've got COVID, your risk of dying from COVID.
Now the orange line here is basically the death curve and I've magnified it.
It's on the right-hand axis.
So you can see how it is relative to the infections and actually see how it changes.
So in the first, the left-hand part of the graph, the pre-Omicron, you're seeing that
the orange lines are like above the infection line and the scales are the same throughout
the whole thing.
But as soon as Omicron hits, look, the orange lines are like a tenth or 20% of the infection
line, which means that your risk of dying went way down.
But it wasn't the vaccine that caused it.
It was Omicron.
It was the variant that caused the change.
And you can see this also with an odds ratio calculation.
So you hit the vaccine rollout and that orange line is supposed to go down and it goes up.
And people don't like to talk about this data because it goes the wrong way.
And as an example, Apple Valley Village Healthcare Center, they saw seven times higher COVID
death rates after the COVID vaccine was rolled out.
It was supposed to go the other way.
And of course, nobody who currently works at Apple Valley, village would talk to me on
the record about this.
It'll cause mortality, gold standard, time series, the cohort analysis, this is what
we did.
We looked at, we put people in buckets, they got, so this is an example of the record
here and we put them in buckets of man weeks from the time of the dose and so forth.
This is not too complicated, but long, I don't have enough time to explain it here.
But basically, they're four independent variables and one dependent variable, you analyze it
and you look at it.
This is what the graph should look like.
They should look pretty much straight lines.
And of course, morbidity goes, your mortality rate goes up with age.
But they basically should be straight lines because these are mortality rates, so these
are in deaths per 100,000 person years, should be straight line.
Okay, so record level data, of course, it's simply the year birth, the date of death,
if they're dead in the vaccination history, that's what record level data is, it looks
like this, very simple and it's the key and we can instantly tell.
This is why it's never.
No wonder he has so many slides.
They have like two words on me just going through the-
We see the only explanation.
What the hell?
What is this?
It seems they're killing people and at this point, we're rearranging deck chairs and
they're like, well, did it kill, you know, like 1.3 people per thousand or 1.2 people?
Who cares?
It killed too many people.
And was there a benefit?
No, there was no benefit.
No way.
Oh, that's awesome.
So, and I'm, of course, pushing for a disclosure of this information, this record level data.
And I offered all this stuff to the FDA, CDC, Pfizer, Moderna, and the California Department
of Public Health.
And none of them wanted to see the record level data.
It's fantastic.
Any qualified epidemiologists to see it, nobody wanted to see the data either and the reason
is I wanted to show the data to them so they could say, oh, you, you know, you goofed
your assigner or whatever and I was trying to be responsible before I went public with
this.
So, I tried for weeks to get anybody to look at the data.
Nobody wanted to take the time to explain it to me or my colleagues, how we got it all
wrong.
They all refused my offer.
They said the vaccines are safe and they don't want the record level data that they
had never seen before.
They don't want to see it.
It's kind of like the treasure of Sierra Madre.
You all remember this scene from the treasure of Sierra Madre's when he says, when this
guy says, we are the Federalists, you know, the CDC, you know, and the guys at the,
why is he making all these dumb jokes asking for, you know, do you have any badges?
He said, and so the guy says, data, we ain't got no data.
We don't need no data.
And now he's also doing a bad accent, like some kind of paraphrasing, it was actually
bad.
That is really awful.
But I changed the word to data.
Essentially, we're the feds and we don't need to show you any stinkin' data.
And this kind of sums it up here in terms of our trusted authorities.
You don't have to trust me even in any research.
We now have that record level data.
And if you think you got it wrong, let me know.
You can download the data here.
You use the wasabi export and download it.
You can also use our clone.
And these are the access codes to be able to download it yourself and you can verify.
What?
It's in the slide, like it's posted, it's posted.
Overcoming objections, you can't prove the vaccines caused this, you didn't control
for confounders.
There are no confounders that can possibly explain this.
Where they hide the bodies.
You know, people say, oh, you know, there's no access where they hide the bodies.
Oh, they hit the bodies in plain sight.
New Zealand records make us increase in registered deaths in 100 years.
And the UK access deaths in 2022 among worst in 50 years.
That's where they hit the bodies, folks, in plain sight.
Okay.
And then you saw the New Zealand thing.
The US had 600K access in 2021 alone.
It's normally 2.8 million people who die, 3.4 million who died in 2021.
And it's a good bet that most of these deaths were vaccine related.
John Badwin, who's who's here.
Oh, John, Baldwin is there, too.
My gosh.
Right on.
Whoa.
It's a journal.
John didn't have access to vaccine.
John Baldwin has the data.
All he got was mortality data.
He got the death records in the audience.
And he found that 4,000 excess deaths were caused by the vaccines, 4,000 deaths caused
by the vaccines.
And he didn't even have the vaccination data to do that.
That is heroic work.
Now, if the vaccines were safe, he should have found fewer than 15 deaths.
He found 266 times higher than the safe expectations.
And here is the URL.
You should go check out his article.
He spent a lot of work on those slides.
And he deserves your support.
And he also has a link to the book on that page, right?
Yeah.
Real.
Oh, there was Kevin.
I saw Kevin.
The book is TheRealCDC.com.
It will be maybe three weeks.
There's Kevin right there.
See him?
That's Kevin.
We're supposed to get the website up and there's Kevin.
There's Kevin.
Hopefully it's running, if not, try it tomorrow.
Thanks, dude.
And that's John selling his book.
Nice.
I like that.
And John is also doing something.
Can I talk about what you're doing with the CDC?
The legal process and all that?
Yeah.
Okay.
So he's also sending a little memo to the CDC saying, guys, I'm putting you on legal
notice that this is happening and these deaths are happening.
Yeah, John Bodewin, we like John Bodewin, we like that guy.
We like him.
John Bodewin.
We like him.
The real text that he doesn't say is, and if you ignore this and do nothing, you're
going to jail.
Here are the 20 most vaccinated countries.
Here's what happened to Texas when we're telling all these countries, I'm not going
to show you all of them, but you get the idea.
This is the VAERS data.
Do you see a problem?
This is when the vaccines rolled out.
Do you see a problem?
Nobody who works at the CDC can see a problem with this.
I don't think this is normal.
This is normal.
Right?
We're now we're talking about...
Can you believe that?
I mean, these people are brain dead.
It's still nice to listen.
You know, they hire blind people.
I mean, he can try and lay it out.
He's almost done.
He said he had 200 and some slides.
I was kidding about that, but it seems like it.
Okay.
Western Australia.
These are essentially the VAERS report and the VAERS reporting rate in Australia, the
equivalent of VAERS.
Medical examiners, willful blindness.
This is by Peter McCulloch, MD.
We talked about him before.
He found that 73.9%, you know, essentially 74% of the deaths following vaccination were
due to the COVID vaccine, but all of these were labeled as, you know, just normal deaths
by the medical examiners.
100,000 people, sorry, 10,000 died suddenly events and pull in full public view since
the vaccine program started virtually all are in the vaccinated.
This is unprecedented.
In Ed Dao's book, Cause Unknown, they have only found one person who was unvaccinated
in the 500 people who died unexpectedly.
What about that?
Do you not understand or the births that never happened?
This is a tweet from someone that and this resonated with a lot of people.
It got 128,000 views and the person wrote, I do not know one person who has had a clear
and normal pregnancy since they took the COVID vaccines, either a miscarriage, still birth
or early.
We can talk to Dr. Thorpe.
I mean, to even have anybody say that is a disaster and to have this resonate with
the public where they say, yeah, yeah, me too, me too, me too, me too, you can go and
reference this tweet and you will see how many me twos there are.
There are a lot of them.
And of course, this, I love this one clearly baffling, right, right, that Ed Dao wrote
at the top clearly baffling U.S. infant mortality rate rises for the first time in
more than 20 years clearly baffling, can't figure it out.
But people are now seeing the evidence for themselves, people are, this person wrote,
he is doubly vexed, he's, you know, he believed in it and he says, I have never heard about
so many working adults sick in my life.
Okay, next objection, if this is really true, why aren't any of the MIT professors speaking
out, right?
Because surely MIT professors are smart and they know everything that was in the slide
deck and they would be speaking out.
Well, some are, MIT professor at Zaflavi.
I've played him on stream before.
Others choose to remain silent.
And so is that how science is supposed to work is, is, is doctor, is professor Robert
Langer, the new role model?
No, he's not a relative.
He's like, is one of his best friends and is, is security in the United States of America
that duck, you duck and run for cover when you are challenged?
Is that the new standard?
Is MIT Institute professor Langer's running from this data?
Is that the model that we want to have for MIT students for this is how you deal with
adverse data?
This is how you deal with truth.
You run from it.
You make sure that you don't show up and talk about it and defend it.
You know, so how many people want to see a real debate on this data?
You know, or do you prefer that we censor one side of it so that you only hear from one
side, like when you turn on CNN and you only hear one side of the story.
You know, it's, they, these people say, oh, yeah, we want the debate to happen, but it
shouldn't have in this scientific literature.
I hate that because it takes years.
Like autism, for example, 20 years, for 20 years, it's been an ongoing question.
Is vaccines cause autism?
I look at the data, and of course it does.
There's no question.
I would bet my life on it that vaccines cause autism.
Wow.
Now, that's something-
How does that work out that we resolve this in the scientific literature?
Interesting.
For 20 years, that's an ice-glove.
That's an ice-glove.
Yes, there's an effect.
No, there's not.
For 20 years, and that's the way these so-called scientists want to resolve ambiguity.
They want to do it in the literature where it will take 20 years or maybe never.
That's how they want this to be resolved.
And we want it to happen now in a real-time dialogue.
Okay.
And then there's the objection.
Well, if that's true, how come I don't know anyone who died from the vaccine?
Well, you probably did, but you just didn't realize it.
Like, if you're an MIT, I, uh, uh, Pologasi was a roommate.
I mean, I, in B entry, I was in B entry, McGregor, in the class of 78, Paul was one
of my roommates in B entry, and he died, and you know what?
He died six months right after he got his first vaccine shot, exactly on schedule, exactly
as predicted.
He died in his own swimming pool, and they never made that public.
People don't die in their own swimming pool.
That doesn't happen.
Pologasi was full of life.
He didn't deserve what happened to him, but nobody wants to talk about it.
There's another very young guy, 29, Peter Badu.
I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it correctly.
He died unexpectedly.
Nobody knows why.
There's a survey that was done.
Do you know someone, this is done by Rasmussen, when they're one of the finest polling companies
in America, they're willing to ask the questions that nobody else wants to ask.
You know, someone personally who died from side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine, 24%
said yes.
This is, they're asking Americans.
This is not, they're not asking anti-boxers.
They're asking Americans, 24% knew someone who died from the vaccine.
That is unprecedented.
Data transparency is key to reform.
All we need is one place, a state or a country.
Holy cow.
What the heck is this?
Or we cut it, or we cut it like the president who believes in data transparency, who fix
the problems.
That's a left turn.
With the corruption of the CDC and FDA.
We will instantly reduce SIDS, autism, autoimmune diseases, heart disease, food allergies,
doctors, and more.
As you know that if you look at overnight autism where the kid is normal one day and
just becomes autistic instantly, in a 24-hour period, goes from normal to autistic, severely
autistic, in 24 hours, there are no cases that happen two weeks prior to a scheduled
vaccine visits.
And I talked with pediatrician Doug Holsted, he had 44 cases happening two weeks after the
scheduled vaccine.
It's not related to the vaccine, explain that.
His closing bid is impressive.
He repeated everywhere.
SIDS, same deal.
Fifty percent happened within 40 hours of the vaccine.
If that's not causal, I don't know what is.
It's in the Omaha Police Department records.
I tried to foyer the information.
The guy said, no, it's not there.
I said, yes it is.
And let me have you talk to the detective who knows it's there.
He talked to the detective who told me about this, and then he ghosted me.
They did not comply with the foyer request because they know it's right and they know
what it would expose the link between SIDS and autism, and they don't want anyone to
know because if people knew they would be furious, so they keep it hidden and they don't
comply with the foyer request.
In 2009, Congress decided it was better if the NIH did not do a study comparing the fully
unvaccinated with the fully vaccinated to look at health outcomes.
Congress said the American people do not want to know if the unvaccinated are healthier
or not healthier than the vaccinated, we'd prefer not to know that.
And so, HR 3069 in 2009 was killed in committee.
They basically don't want you to know either they are corrupt.
Every...
Wow!
So...
They've been the first 37 minutes then.
And there's a great book!
Newly-moss Republicans.
A guy named Robert F Kennedy.
And Brian Hooker that documents all this that everyone should get.
There is also a large pediatric practice in the United States, they have been in business
for over 25 years, they have no autism, they have no ADHD.
The kids never get sick, the secret.
They avoid all vaccines.
They avoid the use of Tylenol if you have a fever and a few other things.
Now, they have to be hidden.
I can't even tell you who they are.
I know who they are, but I can't tell you their names because they would lose their license
to practice medicine for going against the medical consensus.
Heart disease, it doesn't affect the fully unvaccinated.
This is a comparison of heart disease for the fully unvaccinated.
It's zero versus 48% of Americans on average.
And I checked the references on this.
Your cardiologist simply forgot to tell you this.
Bottom line.
This is the first time he's ever said that autism is caused by vaccines.
The first time he said that all vaccines should be gone.
It's the first time he's ever pushed CHD like this.
So now the question is, how are they going to respond to this presentation?
They'll probably ignore it.
Be silenced.
If they are forced to, they will say we do not respond to external analyses.
Period, end of story.
Thank you very much.
In fact, checker says, you know, you're wrong.
Or it isn't published in a peer reviewed journal.
We don't have to respond to it.
You can't make us look.
And if it does get published, what happens is the paper magically gets retracted.
They'll find a reason to retract it.
Guarantee.
That's how science works nowadays.
Or they'll say, hey, the CC loves to do this.
Things are safe.
We've given billions of doses and nobody has died.
You can trust us.
And the fine print says, even though we've never done the proper autopsy's on anything
I expect this, and we never did the time series cohort analysis ourselves on the record level
data.
So we don't actually really know if the vaccines are safe or not to be perfectly honest.
But they don't, that's in the fine print.
The part in yellow is in the fine print.
You just see the part in white.
Got it?
So fine plots.
Hiding public health data always leads to worse health outcomes.
So why are we doing it?
Stop hiding the data.
Set the data free.
That, you know, if you've got one thing from this presentation, stop hiding the data.
Set the data free.
We want to see the data.
We want to see it now.
This slide deck is posted on my sub stack.
And I want to thank you to all of the paid subscribers that have my sub stack.
Because you enable me to do this work.
Otherwise I have to get a real job doing something and not speak out about the vaccine.
So what's that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard to the, I thought you invented the
optical mouse.
I thought you sold two companies for a billion dollars.
You don't need a job.
It enables me to fund my work on other people and I fund multiple people and organizations
to get this work out.
You can contact me on Twitter.
I'm SD Kirsch on, sorry, it's X now.
SD Kirsch on X and there's a, on the pinned tweet.
It shows how to contact me.
Darn it.
And there's even a proposed community.
He doesn't need anybody's money on that.
I mean, they're really trying to like, Mr. Kirsch is a mister, no misinformation spreader
and it doesn't say that, you know, and, or you can subscribe to my sub stack at Kirsch
sub stack.com and that is the last slide.
So thank you very much.
Oh, yeah, yeah, right, standing ovation.
Where's Robert Malone?
I mean, it's nice that everybody's excited about it.
I do really think it's great that people are waking up and seeing that there's been damage
done.
I think it's really important.
But I also think that I also think, thank you so much.
So we have time for questions, right?
Oh, okay, we're going to wait.
I'll do that.
We have the room till nine, so, okay, oh, hey, that's Randall Bach.
That's Randall Bach.
It's so fun.
So, so thank you.
My name is Dr. Randy Bach.
I'm the author of overturning.
You had him on.
Which was the last pandemic.
The pandemic never was.
So I'm a skeptic kind of guy.
And you should look into that.
It's very easy to find Amazon, so a lot of stuff that people think happened with Zika
causing microcephaly.
It was a big bruja.
It was a big huge, biggest pandemic ever until this one came along.
So it's been eclipsed.
But anyway, so I'm not, I don't buy into the background data that gets forced on people.
So I'm with you on that.
The thing that I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, no pun intended.
These have, have use.
And there are useful vaccines over time.
We don't really, I'm a medical doctor.
I did primary care for 30 something years.
And we don't really see German measles anymore.
Rebella is an issue in pregnancy.
There's Rebella syndrome.
We don't really see Rebella syndrome anymore.
So there are vaccines that work and have been useful.
Smallpox we don't see anymore.
Anyway, I want to get to the point.
I understand there's going to be pushback.
But, but my real point is that, that insofar as arguing at this point, I'm like 90, I
some percentage agreement with you.
I'd like to stipulate though that this was not a vaccine rollout.
You know, a genuine vaccine is prior to an illness.
This has always been the case.
I think they made huge factual errors and stipulation errors for whatever reason.
I think they, you know, it was kind of a forced experiment on people.
They needn't have done the mRNA platform and they had an adenovirus, a flu shot.
And there's a lot of other ways in which this was a complete bollock stuff thing.
They gave it to people who had already had the illness.
So the, the, the pushback I would give about this vaccine not being safe is that it was
never done prior.
It was not done the way vaccines were.
Dr. Fauci himself 2005 or four, I was talking whatever, you know, severe flu was happening
that year and he was asked, should people who've had this flu get this flu shot?
And he was like, no, they should not get this because anybody.
And anybody who has had the illness has perfect immunity.
You've seen the entire virus.
The vaccine is only one little tiny protein.
You're only going to get anyway.
So, so thank you, I'll be here all night.
The last point, or I have a number of other points.
I mean, that you bring out the fact that Omicron came out.
But basically the problem with this vaccine, a lot of the problem is that there was no real benefit
because it was not given a 29, the way a normal flu shot would have been.
And it was given after the fact, and many people had already had the illness.
So you're working on the problem of having antibody, antibody-dependent enhancement
and a lot of secondary problems from this shot, which was no longer acting like a vaccine.
Plus, the virus itself had mutated.
I got one quick example.
Wow.
Come on, Randall.
The Alec Baldwin, we've got to get him.
We've got to get him back on the show.
There's four Baldwin brothers.
And let's say Alec is the most dangerous.
He punches paparazzi, shoots people, and so forth.
And so if he was the ancestral SARS-CoV-2,
and let's stipulate that is quasi-dangerous.
I don't think it was that danger from the diamond princess.
It was never the problem that was, it was foisted upon us to be.
So, but let's say he's the most dangerous of the Alec Baldwin brother, of the Baldwin brothers.
And so the police, at your party, you're not going to let this son of a bitch get in.
So they all get pictures of Alec Baldwin.
That's the type of immunity.
They're your immune system.
They're not going to let Alec Baldwin.
So they're pretty good.
If you haven't prior to the fact before he shows up at your party, he's going to shoot somebody.
But in this case, Alec Baldwin's already been put in jail.
He's already all left the scene.
SARS-CoV-2 has left the scene.
And now you're left with the Daniel, Billy, Stephen, Baldwin's.
And those are the alpha, beta, delta variants and so forth.
And they are substantially less dangerous than, but they could still punch a paparazzi, I guess.
You know, and so your guards, some will let some of the Baldwin brothers in.
Some of them.
So this was always an imperfect experiment as far as the vaccine go.
And yeah, I'll get to the first part.
So there's no real point in giving this after the fact because Baldwin's already left the scene.
And at this point, when Omicron showed up, it's really Haley Baldwin.
She's not a danger.
OK, so I'm with you for the most part.
I think this was only risk and there was no benefit because they gave it to the wrong age groups.
If they had so the thing I would push back as far as vaccine efficacy, this vaccine.
I think they should have just given it to people at risk from coronavirus, which was elderly.
And that's that.
But the end killed all the elderly there, especially.
Can you tell me where I said I've looked at the record level.
Oh, my gosh, the gold standard.
There's nothing better than that.
There is no more better gold standard evidence, ground zero level.
Randy, you should give it to the elderly.
Randy, stop.
Again, I agree with most of what you say, because this was given anachronistically.
This was given this vaccine was given after SARS-CoV-2 had left the scene.
Look, you just said that you should give it to the elderly.
I'm asking for your evidence data, the evidence.
Oh, man, no one is that vaccines of this type, like the flu shot, would be beneficial.
Is Randy going to play the bad guy here?
No, no, let me explain what evidence is.
Oh, no, Randy's playing the bad guy here.
If you have record level data, I want to see it.
If you don't have record level data,
do you have record level data that shows that it's beneficial for the elderly?
I stipulated that I'm 90 percent
in agreeing with you because this is a flawed experiment on human beings.
I'm with you most of the way.
This is a horrible experiment that was done.
What is happening here?
OK, all right. Next question.
Wow, that was really interesting.
Randy Bach was in the house.
Steve, first, thank you very much.
Have you followed the
speaking of Dr. David Martin to the European Parliament about the origins of COVID?
The doctor, David Martin.
You know, I had that queued up for tonight.
I was going to watch tomorrow.
The development of the COVID-19 with the US government, USAID.
Do you follow Dr. David Martin?
Yes.
So, yes, and it is troubling to me
that there is this long nucleotide sequence, which is in the Moderna patent,
which is also in SARS-CoV-2.
Oh, here we go.
How did it get there?
Oh, geez.
Moderna was asked that question.
This one is really coming up a lot lately.
How did the sequence, this warm sequence in the patent get into SARS-CoV-2 virus?
How did that happen?
And I think the CEO said, let me check on that and I'll get back to you.
We are still waiting.
We're still waiting to find out the answer.
There must be a reason for how this sequence found in the Moderna patent.
God, it's way into the virus.
We'll hear about that someday.
I'm sure maybe in 75 years from now,
which is the new gold standard that the FDA
endorses for releasing safety data on a vaccine.
John.
Thanks, Steve.
You talked about data.
John Bowden.
There is one state that has probably the most powerful public health data
transparency bill that is a security guard.
Jason Gerhard submitted it in New Hampshire.
It's a security guard.
Jason Gerhard gets a lot of applause.
We have some new new Hampshire people here now.
A few state reps.
Emily Phillips is a co-sponsor of that bill.
She's up in the crowd.
And you may not know Jason Gerhard and Erie Pauls have brought me in to speak
with the Attorney General of New Hampshire and the Criminal Justice Bureau
Chief. It was supposed to be 30 minutes.
It went 45.
They were still engaged.
You're in Jason, get up to leave and I'm like, what are you doing?
We're still talking.
So it ended with a with a walk out the door after I got him to laugh.
I got the smiles to drop in their faces.
My question to you is after you read it,
I hope you will consider supporting it publicly because again,
this is probably the greatest public health transparency bill around.
So I hope you'll support that.
I have been talking to the people in New Hampshire.
I just, you know, they said that they want to keep a pretty low profile
so they don't get torpedoed.
But yeah, I'm totally, it's absolutely the right thing to do.
And I'll say another thing about data transparency, which is there is a governor
in the United States of America
that I think within the next few months
will make a bold move and make these record level data public in his state.
I know who he is.
I have like no voice.
Isn't him just sent to ask Steve to discuss how any right in course data shows no evidence of spread.
I just sent it to John B right now.
I just call it a vaccine because that's how I could call it the shot.
We will see where the jab.
Go ahead, John Bowdo.
I'm just trying to relate.
I'm hoping that this I don't want to talk to us.
I don't want to have an echo chamber.
I want to I want to talk to people who believe that now he won't take any more questions from John Bowdo.
And so I'm trying to to to communicate
in a language that those people understand about what it is.
So I'm trying to be.
Come on, John, be give me an answer.
How about just give me an answer?
No. Oh, that's all. Yeah.
He is. Yeah.
Yeah, you know, I I'd love to ask him a few questions about that.
But I kind of don't think they're going to let me ask any questions.
That's kind of the way it works.
Yeah, Steve, first I want to thank you for this talk today.
And I just want to thank the MIT students for hosting this.
So my name is my name is Steve Vitar.
I'm an electrical and computer engineer.
I've been teaching at Worcester Polytechnic Institute for over 22 years.
My red pill moment was when I had a young man sitting in my office asking for
special accommodations because he instantly had a heart attack to the Pfizer booster
and then was being treated for myocarditis.
So that was my red pill moment and that's when I did the deep dive in the same data
that you showed the adverse event reporting system and I saw all the increases
and reports on the COVID vaccine.
I was wondering why isn't the CDC seeing the red flags if I can see them and I'm
not even trained for that.
By January of 2022, just a few months later,
I had seven student deaths, which they attributed to suicide,
except that I knew one of those young men.
His name was Tyler Larson from Pelham, New Hampshire.
He was on crew team.
He's found dead in his dorm room and it wasn't a suicide.
So I know those vaccines are harmful,
especially to that cohort.
I'm standing here today because I care about these young people and I know the
vaccine is harmful to them.
I've been trying to get the word out on my campus.
And so I applaud the work that you're doing.
The guy at the Blackboard actually hosts a lot of the VROS and VSRF.
I guess my question is first team.
I do believe this has been deliberate attempt by our government and maybe the
governments of the world to harm people.
So and it's dangerous.
We're living in a time where I just cannot believe what our government is doing.
So what do you think is the most important thing that we should be doing?
Oh, no, thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah.
You know, I think the thing that's going to shift this is not my giving talks.
It's people.
It's when people like Paul Offit wake up in the morning and say,
what side of history do I want to be on today?
And it's going to take people like Paul Offit switching from supporting the
vaccines and saying the vaccines are safe to switching sides and joining us on
the right side of history and start advocating for truth and transparency.
And that's when it will shift.
It will shift when people who people respect and trust switch sides and the
more people that do that, the faster this will change.
And I have reached out to Paul Offit to say, Paul, I have record level data.
Do you want to see the record level data and do you want the tools I used to
analyze it because you can find the same thing.
And his response was, I don't want to talk to him.
And that is the problem.
None of these people who can make a difference
want to look at the data.
They do not want to see the truth.
And it is going to take a lot of people.
It's going to take epidemiologists who are not afraid of losing their job
and destroying their career.
We're not afraid to do that in order to speak the truth.
Hi, Steve.
And I hope that this presentation that I made today will encourage people to say
John Baldwin is enough not going to take it anymore.
And I'm going to start speaking out because, you know,
I asked these AI chatbots, you know, chat GPT, I asked, hey, have there been any
people who are who become anti-vaxxers that switched over to being pro vaccine
and the chatbot says, yes, there are plenty of them, like Dell Bigtree.
And, you know, they've listed people who are like, man, these guys are like
totally in our camp here.
And so chat GPT is completely blue-pilled.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
Like, I'm not making this stuff up.
I mean, I posted it on Twitter that the response, but it's going to take people
to a lot of people to flip sides or pull off it could do it single-handedly.
If pull off it, single-handedly got red-pilled and he chose to look at the data
and he realized that, yeah, the jig is up.
Look, you know, the longer these people refuse to look at the data,
the more they are discrediting their community.
The more they discredit the medical community, the medical community now has
an opportunity to look at this data and analyze it themselves
and verify everything I said today.
The longer they avoid doing this, the deeper the hole they will dig themselves
into and the first rule of holes is when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
So, hi, Steve.
I'm over here, right here.
Go.
Hi. So, I'm actually Team Reality CT, if anyone knows on Twitter.
Hello.
Yeah. So, I am running the National Stop College Mandates.
This is stopcollegemandates.org.
I do want to just give credit to Adam and Spencer. I have to tell you.
We have been at this for two and a half years and I'm telling you, it's single digits
how many college kids will get involved in this and it's painful and it really needs to happen at that level.
When we interviewed and did the rally at Yale, we had Naomi Wolf there
and every single student that we talked to privately, they knew of a child or a peer, I should say,
that had menstrual issues, strokes, they had, you know, embolisms, it was incredible
and they still got the booster. They would not buck the system.
It was absolutely incredible. So, I do want to thank you. I absolutely want to talk to you after this.
But Steve, I'm really curious about how do we wake up that generation because that's our biggest challenge.
I think the kids in college, high school, they need to just stand up and say no more.
There's 74 colleges that are still mandating in our country. This is absolutely an abomination.
I mean, it's criminal at this point. We need to build a case for criminal and actually sue.
So, I'm hoping some people will go to our website and sign our petition.
There's also a student declaration. You should know about this. It's student declaration 2023.org.
Okay. If you can sign that, that would be wonderful. I appreciate your time and everything you're doing.
Thank you very much. Thank you for everything you're doing to get rid of the mandates on campus.
It is going to be a long battle. I think the only way that the needle shifts is for, again, the people like Paul Offit or Peter Hotez.
And the needle shifts when kids take one year off the university. Come on. This is a joke. This pisses me off.
I told everybody not to go back to school in 21. Just stay home for a year for these universities.
It's ridiculous. How much longer do we would have had parents stand up at this time and they could have stood up and just said,
I'm keeping my kid home for a year and he's going to get a job. It would have been all over.
This would have been a non-sequitur.
And they would have been out of the Wake University. It's that simple because this is not sustainable what they're doing.
They're living on short time views right now. And the longer they delay, the worse they look and the more they discredit their profession.
Hi. I wanted to point out that the CDC is regionalizing health boards in the state of Massachusetts
so that they can actually circumvent local boards of health that are elected and appointed officials of a town.
So it's done with a grant. And the grant is like, oh, well, we'll give you this money and you can do a regionalization.
The town like Halifax is being grouped with and in big cities and not even the towns that are like Halifax.
And it's all to have the CDC rules. So when you ask why this is occurring, it's because under the cover of grants such as the Federal Cares Act,
which allows the lowering of quorums at town meetings, and it's all done because we don't go to town meeting.
I don't know how much this thing is worth, but that's an expensive rig right there.
That's probably more expensive than all of the equipment that I have around me.
It's Mike's from Craigslist. And that's not from Craigslist.
Why do your taxes go up? Because you didn't go to town meeting and vote. So when you say they are doing this,
no, you are. Get up and go vote at your town meeting.
Thank you.
Yeah, that's an expensive camera rig there.
So as a graduate of this institution, I greatly respect the reviewed literature.
And you mentioned the Cleveland Clinic study, which is fantastic.
And then you probably know the one in vaccine from the FOIA data from Pfizer.
Is there any effort to take your data and have it make its way through the peer reviewed literature?
Yes, so we're writing up my results in a paper. So I'm a co-author on that.
It's being written by someone who works for me.
So I don't have to worry that it's not going to happen. And it's been reviewed by an editor of the peer review journal
and he wants to publish it. And so we're just fine tuning it right now.
Interesting.
So they won't be able to say, well, we'll look at it when it's in the peer reviewed literature.
Because that time is coming real soon now.
And there's no way they're going to be able to stop it either.
I wonder where I was going to go.
Hi, Steve. I really appreciate this, of course. Great to see it all in one place and put together as you've done.
I'm curious whether you have any other targets for your debate people.
What do you mean by targets?
You want to challenge to a debate and you offer you the million dollars or whatever.
Is there anyone left that you're looking at?
You know, I wish because I'm kind of looking, I could always use an extra million or more.
So I'm looking to bet people, I offered a million dollars to anybody in the world who would take my million dollars.
And the bet is I bet the vaccines killed more people than they saved.
Now you know why I made the bet.
And it's a neutral panel of judges that decides that there's only one guy in the world
who accepted it and he said, I'm only going to do it for half a million.
But if I like the judges, I'll go higher.
So there is one guy from Israel who accepted my million dollar bet.
So the interesting thing is that they're willing to bet your life that they are correct,
but they're not willing to bet their money that they are correct.
Isn't that interesting?
I don't know, I don't know, you know, it's like big hat, no cattle, right?
They talk big and they're willing to risk your life over it, but they're not willing to risk their money.
Now Moderna won't risk their money and Pfizer won't risk their money.
They're not standing behind their product.
Why if the vaccines are safe and effective, why wouldn't Pfizer or Moderna want to challenge me
and win and prove that their vaccine is safe?
Because they know it's not.
I'd like to suggest, Steve, I'd like to suggest a pivot.
Could you consider perhaps offering that same kind of money to anyone who would be a whistleblower?
Because what we need is the real, you've got the-
That's a beautiful point.
What we need is the intent.
That's the beautiful point.
Oh, wow, that's an interesting one.
I don't think he expected anybody to call them out like this.
A whistleblower would need support if they were to come forward.
What do you think, Steve?
Put your money where your mouth is, Steve?
Perhaps, and the money would be towards them, their legal fees.
What's up, Steve?
Yeah, so I'm totally willing to do that.
You can use the Contact Me link.
There is already a checkbox for whistleblowers, and you just name your price.
Wow.
This is very-
CDC would want to do the same thing, right?
This is very, very interesting.
They want to find out intent for whistleblowers.
Isn't there a CDC program where you can show that they fudge the data
or the fabric?
Like, where is the CDC program?
Surely there must be a CDC and FDA program for that.
Isn't there?
No way.
What does that tell you?
Yeah.
Why is he filming from behind Steve?
I guess he gets the audience or something, I don't know.
It's hard to be a whistleblower nowadays, right?
You know, there are whistleblower rejection laws, but they don't necessarily work the way they were intended.
That's because you first have to whistleblower internally.
And by the way, this whistleblower in New Zealand?
Sorry.
The whistleblower in New Zealand, he made an enormous risk.
No, it's a he.
He made an enormous risk in disclosing this data.
He could go to jail, he could be killed.
There are lots of things that could happen to this guy.
This guy is a hero.
And, you know, please give a round of applause for him.
Because it's people like that that are willing to sacrifice everything to get the truth out
because they are so disgusted with what is happening
and how many people have been killed by their government
that they are willing to sacrifice their life, their future
in order to get the word out.
And this whistleblower has my undying gratitude
and I will absolutely help this whistleblower get another job.
It's probably not going to be keeping his for very long
and do anything I can to help him because he has done an incredible service to humanity
in making this data public.
So one question, one comment.
The question is how can the CDC, the FDA, ignore the open veers data?
It is so compelling.
That's the question.
And for those people that believe in vaccines,
if you want the true story, there's a book called Turtles All the Way Down.
If you read that book.
Come on, really.
You read that book, even polio, you'll question if any vaccine
that's ever been developed is effective in safe.
And I totally agree with that.
There's no evidence that any of these vaccines are safe and effective.
None of them are tested against placebo for safety
and as far as effectiveness, the way we find out.
I will remind you that he did plug Brian's book.
He did plug Brian's book.
And so he didn't plug his Turtles All the Way Down book.
He plugged Brian's book during the talk.
So even if that guy mentioned it now, Steve, Steve did well.
How often that?
I mean, the data presentation was awful and the way that he presented it was awful.
But the end of the talk, the summary was really strong.
They had the data and Medicare could be exposed to never, for any vaccine,
they are never, ever disclosing that information.
There must be a reason.
I can't figure it out.
And as far as the bears, like how can they ignore the bears data, it's easy.
They just ignore it.
That's the way it works.
We're the Federales.
We don't need no data.
We don't have no data.
They actually did look at their data and they found 770 different safety signals.
That means this adverse event is a huge problem.
This class of adverse events is a huge problem.
770 different classes of adverse events.
That is like the houses on fire.
What did they do?
They did nothing.
The only reason that we know about the 770 safety signals that were triggered.
And I'm not talking about 770 people.
I'm talking about pulmonary embolism is one of the safety signals.
I'm talking about cancer is one of the safety signals.
That's what I'm talking about.
I said safety signals 770.
The buildings on fire, what did they do?
They did nothing.
The only way we found out about that is because somebody did a freedom of information act request on the CDC.
And they discovered that the CDC had the alarm bells are going off throughout the building.
770 fires throughout the building of the CDC and the CDC did nothing.
It did absolutely nothing.
It's in the public record.
It's a freedom of information act request.
Anybody can do that.
They do nothing.
They are corrupt.
There is no question about it.
That organization needs a big overhaul.
Yes, I don't think so.
Hi.
Thank you so much.
And thank you to over there as well, the young students.
I want to bring up the word whistleblower.
It really blows my mind that if everyone stood up, there is no whistleblower.
It's that everyone stands up.
And I see it in communities that I'm in and everyone's talking about, you know, the information about the job and how bad it is, but they don't speak up.
Who's that?
Is that Jill?
It's kind of like it's a good day for dying.
It's like speak up.
Because if everyone spoke up, then the tables would turn.
And whether it's about money or not money, it's about if everyone that knows the truth.
Professors, whomever, if they all stood up, the table would turn.
Do you know what I mean?
It's like so simple.
Yeah, if everybody got together, follow the doctors at UCSF.
And by the way, none of them, I think none of the doctors at UCSF are getting any more jobs.
They all know that it kills people.
They're not going to get themselves.
But that's what I mean.
Everyone has their own level of fear, whether it's about money or ridicule or whatever.
But if the majority of people that knew the truth stood up, they wouldn't lose their jobs because the majority spoke.
The other little glimmer of light that I would like to also share is people that I know who have constantly gotten the job and the boosters.
They keep on getting COVID.
And they're lightening up realizing that they're not going to do that anymore.
So slowly but surely light is shining.
But just rise up.
Come on.
So it's funny to say that, right? Because we've been saying that for four years, not a few months.
We've been saying that since 2020.
Just afraid. I mean, it's 2020.
This guy was looking for EUA contracts and looking for finding ways to make money off of the pandemic by patenting combination of drugs that were already FDA approved.
Working closely with Robert Malone during that whole year.
So it's really ridiculous to say that this guy's a hero when there were people who were speaking up in 2020 and 2021 while he was still trying to cash in.
Come on, ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest.
He did very well in this talk, but he should have been given credit to the people who were doing very well the years before he did and the years before the pandemic before I was even aware of this stuff.
All this stuff public because I think that's that's more important. There was some some commentary.
Commander.
And I think the audience needs to reflect on the fact that peer view is what got us here.
Okay. We saw a surge of fear.
Oh, he's going to go against peer review.
Now he's going to go.
He's going to do his new journal.
And if that is the cathedral, we're going to run all of our data through.
We're going to end up in the same place.
Yeah.
So I think it's really important.
New publishing model.
What do we care about from peer review?
What we care about is reproduction.
We don't care about a bunch of our friends giving us gold stars in our papers.
All right.
Does it reproduce?
If your data can be put public and others can reproduce it, that's all we care about.
I hope people in this audience at MIT, if you're in the Bitcoin club here, you understand this concept that distributed consensus is all that matters.
If your enemies can reproduce your work, it's real.
You don't need any any GM telling you it's real because they're probably paid off.
I used to work in that industry.
We used to pay even 2008, 10 to $20,000 per page for an ad in science and nature.
And we bought them every month.
All right.
So if you think the actual like Fox is paid off, nature and science are far more paid off.
Okay.
They are going to support whatever the pharmaceutical narrative is.
And if you think you're going to get a fair hearing in that scenario, you're sadly mistaken.
Okay.
So put it public.
Let others interrogate it.
And I think peer views very important, but it's no longer trustworthy in the hands that we've trusted it with in the past.
I'll give you a clap for that one.
That's definitely right.
But let's also just talk about reduction in science in general.
I spent some time here on campus.
So nice.
All these MIT kids.
So, so Kevin is actually working on a new project to do exactly what he was talking about.
And by the way, Kevin McCurnan, for those who don't know him, he came to fame recently because of this little issue of DNA contamination.
Or as we like to call it adulteration.
So he found this stuff, including the SV40 promoter sequence in the Pfizer vaccine that is not supposed to be there.
And not only that, we had a nice little chat on Zoom.
And I asked a question about, well, shouldn't like, how did this happen?
And Kevin was saying, well, you know, as soon as you enter the sequence into the, what's the name of that program?
Yeah.
As soon as you enter the sequence into snap gene, snap gene says, hey, SV40 promoter sequence.
And so somebody had to do the active work to erase that sequence from the diagram before it was given to the FDA.
In other words, they knew there was a problem.
And I don't think we have.
We haven't really held it from the FDA.
I don't think we have the data from the FDA.
I think we have the EUA submission, the submission rather to the EU, not the FDA.
It's like I'm waiting for the FDA to give Pfizer the FULAS award.
You know, for fooling them on the SV40 promoter sequence because the FDA, in any reasonable society,
the FDA should be livid about this.
They should call for an investigation.
And somebody should go to jail for this.
And what we have is an FDA that says, we're not going to investigate it.
We don't need to investigate it.
We don't, you know, we don't have to do anything.
Safe and effective.
And that's the way it goes.
So when Kevin finds this huge safety problem, there is no money from the FDA to fund whether
or not this thing can permanently rearrange or change your DNA.
And so the FDA can say, well, there's no evidence that it causes harm.
Of course, there's no evidence because you decided not to fund the research to uncover the evidence.
That is how it works.
That's how the game is played.
Yeah, John.
Thank you.
You guys might know that I'm more on the criminal track.
Here we go.
John asked the question.
Liability.
Everybody knows about the prep act.
The Wolfland misconduct.
He's not going to ask the question.
What Kevin found is extremely instrumental in proving the case in the court of law because strict
liability standard is not going to ask any factor in defect.
Jessica sent him the question too.
For design defect, you'd have to prove a reasonable alternative design.
It's a long drawn out process of negligence within court.
But what Kevin did was unlock the Wolfland misconduct exception of the prep act.
And then as cases move forward, the manufacturing defect, you don't have to prove a reasonable alternative
design.
You only have to prove that the product that was shipped did not meet the safety spec.
That the manufacturer put out.
They came up with a spec.
They're not meeting their own spec.
So product escapes into the stream of commerce, all standard terms that I'm using.
So it's just really important that people understand that the game is on.
And we go after them.
And then we get.
And then we tears the corporate bail.
We go to the executives, take all the money back.
They knew it should have known.
Nobody should have made money on these products.
I go to the gym.
I see the guys from Moderna.
They're around here.
So Norwood's their big manufacturing facility.
And hey, they're up in parties every Friday.
The wine and beer are flowing.
They get free gourmet lunches all the time.
They live in high on the hog as they kill people.
So thanks Kevin and thank you Steve for doing this.
Wow.
So no question about spread.
No question about them faking anything.
Exacerbating the damage.
We'll take one last question.
All right.
Go ahead.
Wow.
Thank you very much.
So this I believe.
COVID is the tip of the iceberg.
If we do the data analysis of every vaccine that's ever been given.
Yes.
From the beginning.
We're doing it.
The death rate.
The destruction.
The loss of family wealth.
We're doing it.
The loss of livelihoods of people.
We're doing it.
Everywhere I go.
I see more and more and more dysfunctional.
I'm sorry.
I don't use that word.
People.
I teach in a high school.
My kids are sick.
My kids cannot think.
They are all getting their boosters because they want to play their sports.
Oh my God.
If we do the real analysis, which I think your wonderful team could do.
We will see that this is truly a takedown of the American people and the world people
by, I believe, a super elite that Professor Quigley refused to name.
I recognize this guy.
Because he didn't want to be killed.
I think I've met him before.
Who is that?
Let's look.
Let's reveal it.
Let's accept it.
We are at war.
I like that she said that.
I don't think Steve will agree.
Maybe he will.
Steve's not going to say anything.
Well, I hope we can give another big round of applause.
He's not going to say anything.
I see.
He didn't have any response to that.
Wow.
That's impressive.
Okay.
So.
That's the show.
I don't think there's going to be anything.
I don't think there's going to be anything after that, but I'll let it play.
I would really like, maybe I'll just listen to the close here.
Thank you very much for coming over and talking about this.
Imagine the world, if all this data, if the world knows about these data, if the mainstream
media, the medical and academia complex did not suppress this, all these data.
It's a weird.
On Monday, November 27th, we sent out one of the more popular tweets on Steve's account.
It was actually the dorm spam in which we emailed 5,000 undergraduates at MIT.
It's so weird.
This guy is going to cross the Rubicon.
Y'all should come.
Well, I think in every sense of the word tonight, the Rubicon has been crossed.
What in the world is going on here?
What is this guy doing?
He's performing.
Because tonight we have done something that has not been pierced in a long time.
We know that the people know what's going on in their skeptical, but the academic and the
government bubbles remain as resolute as ever.
The glass could not be pierced.
Well, as the MSOI tonight, we have just ruptured their glass bubble and we will not be denied.
Interesting, interesting, interesting.
248 years ago, 1775, there was the shot heard around the world, which you're all familiar
with because you're from the region.
It was 30 miles west of here in Concord, Massachusetts.
And tonight, I think, in two ways, we have fired the shot heard around the world.
Oh, man.
I mean, come on.
Are you serious?
We are suggesting the record-level data from New Zealand showing Israel as well and many
other sources.
We now have the vindication.
And in the second way, we as the MSOI, we will continue to rise and we will never back down
as we have in our previous events.
Let's keep this going.
Okay, I think we're going to need your support.
And I hope that this can be the beginning of a big community.
No one knows what's going on on the horizon.
I think I'm just going to leave it here now and slip back over to my notes and to my slide deck that I will end with.
I find it interesting that Kevin McCurnan was in the audience.
I find it interesting that John Bodwin was there.
They both live in Boston, so it's not a crazy thing that they would be there.
I don't have John Bodwin on my diagram here.
I should have him here.
I've got Kevin McCurnan over here.
He's blocked me on Twitter.
He doesn't like to discuss things with me anymore.
He thinks I'm kind of an idiot with regard to molecular biology.
But that's okay.
He's the guy who found the DNA and we're very excited about that.
They are also preserving this narrative of a novel virus and that a million people were killed by it and many more were saved from it.
And it probably came from getting a function.
And in fact, you heard nothing about this tonight.
Nothing about the novel virus.
Nothing about there being no spread.
Despite the fact that Steve Kirsch mentioned a number of times Denny Rancor's data and even one time attributed to Robert Malone agreeing with Denny Rancor's data.
And he did.
Robert Malone promoted the fact that Denny Rancor's data showed that there might be 17 million people dead from the shot, but ignored, very specifically ignored.
What I think is the much larger elephant in the room that there's no evidence of spread of a particularly dangerous pathogen in any of the data.
And I suspect that Steve knows that.
I suspect that everybody that's promoting Denny Rancor as they are knows exactly what they're doing.
They're leaving out that very important observation that the virus and deaths did not cross borders of counties in America.
And so what you saw here was nothing more than a preservation of this narrative that there was a novel virus, millions of people died, millions more were saved, gain a function is real and the virus could come again.
They preserved that 100%.
And at the same time, didn't give any credit to the hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who have been on the right side of this issue from before the pandemic.
And I hope you can see that I try to make that point as often as possible. Being a member of Children's Health Defense is actually a very humbling experience because I don't have any skin in the game.
I haven't lost a child to autism.
I haven't, I don't have particularly damaged kids, although, you know, the more I think about it, the more I think some of them might be a little damaged, but maybe that's just my parenting.
And all jokes aside, I am blessed to have been completely ignorant to this nonsense for my whole life. And I think actually Steve Kirsch was too.
And so I get a little frustrated and I hope it's okay if I get a little frustrated with you here. I get a little frustrated that this guy has no humility at all, not one drop in any of his boots.
Not any humility at all for the women and the men who have been fighting for this issue for decade. If not two.
And it's really important to say that. It really is important to say that because he didn't and they seem to never do it.
And I hope you will get tired of me humbling myself to these people who have had skin in the game for much longer who have been facing this, this rejection, this crazy label for two decades where I just, I just got it and I'm getting paid.
So you know, like, how can I even consider myself doing anything?
How can Steve ask for money for his VRSF and for his sub stack so he can do this work?
Really? You don't want to raise money for the damaged people? You don't want to raise money for the parents of damaged kids?
You don't want to raise money to bring awareness to all of the damaged soldiers? You want to raise money for your sub stack?
You want to raise money for VSRF so you can do what?
On the day that Bobby announced his candidacy in Boston, Bobby had a $250 a plate dinner.
And on the exact same night in the exact same town at the exact same time, Steve Kirsch had a $2,500 a plate dinner.
And yes, he was at the Boston announcement of Bobby's candidacy. So he raised money for his organization on the same night in the same location as Bobby did.
And so yeah, I do kind of see it as a little strange. I'm not necessarily convinced that he's just pro Bobby.
There might be people in the world who are pro Bobby having Steve on his team.
Pro Steve being close to Bobby. Maybe there are people who are happy about that idea.
And for not reasons that are obvious to us now.
Steve did very well. He plugged Brian's book, which was really great because when he did his roast the other night and Brian's movie was played.
And Brian gave a really nice classy roast type video for Steve's three hour fundraiser.
And after the video was played, there was no thanks Brian. There was no Brian Hooker's great. There was no Brian Hooker's a hero. There was no CHD is awesome. There was just talk about Steve and himself.
And so I was very impressed that he he plugged Brian's book and plugged it as the tome of all of the papers that the document the dangers of vaccine in the peer peer reviewed literature.
So kudos for him saying that kudos for him saying that autism is caused by vaccines kudos for him saying these things that needed to be said absent freakin lutely.
But big strike.
Big strike against him for not plugging Denny Rancor's data honestly.
A big strike against him for plugging Denny Rancor's data exactly as Robert Malone did and ignoring the part that matters the most which is there's no evidence of a spreading pathogen.
And that means that he preserved the faith.
He walked right around this elephant.
And so this chess game is continuing.
And it's annoying because the chess game doesn't seem to end. They keep playing games with these numbers. We had the numbers already in America. You see.
We have the numbers already in New York City with Jessica. You see, we have the numbers already with John Bodewin. You see.
But Steve Kirsch never went in front of MIT with John Bodewin's data. He never was going to go in front of it. He didn't use Jessica.
He didn't really use Denny Rancor's data at all.
He mentioned Denny Rancor and he mentioned Denny Rancor's number, but he didn't show the data. And if he had showed the data, then it would have been hard to avoid.
There was no spread because all kinds of other things are correlated with the mass casualty events that were called COVID in 2020 and 2021.
So that's pretty spectacular.
And you see what happened here. We saw exactly this.
An elaborate pulling and pushing on the train. I'm afraid that this is nothing more than that. If we see the data from New Zealand, you're going to see signals that they're going to turn around and say show that lockdown worked.
And that these extra deaths from the vaccine are just because COVID came to New Zealand two years later because our lockdown was so effective.
Because there was no cases of COVID on those graphs.
There were no cases of COVID. There were no diagnostics of COVID. We don't see any waves on there. So we don't know if the waves of death after vaccination occurred with the onset of COVID in New Zealand.
And we don't know if onset of COVID means onset of protocols.
We don't know if it means that they stopped using antibiotics on pneumonia on some of those people because it was COVID.
But what's going to happen is not what we think's going to happen. This train is being faked. This this act is being faked. And I'm afraid that what we just watched is an elaborate trap.
Draped in very fine clothes, right? I mean, when you say that autism is caused by the vaccines, when you say that the vaccine schedule needs to be, you know, we need the data.
It feels really good.
But what was the first 40 minutes was really not what the last 20 minutes was.
The last 40 minutes seemed like a very elaborate show to distract the mother of all data releases was Denny Rancor's paper.
The mother of all revelations was Denny Rancor's paper that shows there's no spread.
The mother of all revelations was was Jonathan Engler and and Jessica Hawkins analysis of or I don't know if she helped with that with the Italian data.
And it's Jessica Hawkins stuff in in New York City. It's the Panda paper.
These are the mother of all revelations, not the New Zealand data.
And if he really had data leaked from the CDC, why didn't we see it? Why didn't he spend more time on it? Why weren't we analyzing it? Why isn't that?
Wasn't that front and center? Why didn't he use it in the summary?
Why were there 246 slides but no summary slides with like data summaries and bullet points?
246 slides with a few words on each slide is not impressive. It's annoying, especially when you go through it really fast with no pointer, no teaching, nothing.
I'm afraid that was a elaborate train pulling thing that did not question the zoonosis, did not question the batcave virus, did not break the illusion of consensus,
didn't even talk about lockdowns and EUAs because of course Steve Kirsch was involved intimately with getting EUAs for combinations repurposed drugs all through 20 and 21 with Robert Malone as his primary contact.
As was explained when they finally came out and decided that they might be kind of need to speak up about something, although they're not really sure what they wanted to speak up about in June of 21.
But Steve used to say, very sucked.
This faith in a novel virus is safe with Steve Kirsch that you can assure the faith in a novel virus is safe with Kevin McCurnan. I can assure you that.
And because this faith is a lie and a spectacular commitment to lie is what is necessary.
You have to be committed, otherwise you're not going to rise up through this social media landscape. You're not going to be artificially promoted by the algorithms.
You're not going to be permitted to succeed unless you stay away from questioning the faith.
And so Denny Rancor is very selectively elevated but used to respect rather than question the faith. That's exactly what you saw happen here.
And why did you see it happen? Because we are at a time point where they need to invert our sovereignty to permissions and they're doing it as fast as they can.
They're trying to eliminate the control group and like it or not, a lot of these people are on that team. They're on the team of the ruling class because they want to be part of the ruling class.
And so if they're given any nuggets about what's going to happen, any nuggets about what the plan is, any nuggets about what's coming to be in the future.
If it's rearranging publishing Kevin's in the right position, if it's mandating sequencing Kevin's in the right position.
And if it's if it's we need a new person to come out against the Vax and play a new role that, you know, Bobby Kennedy can't play or we need somebody to come out and make sure that there's mistakes made and that.
Bobby Kennedy is really associated with an ego maniac. Maybe that's what the plan is. I don't know.
I'm not necessarily, you know, I can't because I work for CHD. I'm not definitely not endorsing anyone here. And I certainly have mapped it out quite right on the the people map that all of these people are still protecting the faith.
And that concludes Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy is still protecting the faith in the novel virus. I don't have that book anywhere now. I don't know where it went. Oh, it's up there.
But the point is, is that everybody needs to learn this. When the book comes out next week, we're going to start teaching it.
So thanks for joining me. This has been fun. They are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
This has been, you know, biological where we know that intramuscular injection by any combinations of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transspection and healthy humans is criminally negligent and viruses are not patterned integrities. Tomorrow
I'm going to watch a video with Alec Zeck and David R. Martin or David Martin.
Because I want to finally understand whether David Martin believes there are viruses or not because I know Alec Zeck would not let him get away with an hour-long conversation where the guy who didn't believe in viruses, I can't believe Alec Zeck would waste an hour of his time talking to somebody like that.
So I'm really excited to hear that. I've got a very special shout out to Mary Holland, which I was super excited about.
I've never seen before where she came and went to bat for me, which is just crazy. I love it.
It was a really interesting question and answer session. So we'll watch that clip and then we'll watch a video with David Martin and Alec Zeck tomorrow.
Thanks for joining me. This has been Gigaohm Biological. It is a presentation of the Independent Bright Web.
I don't know who else is a member, but you can find us when we are struggling to figure out the truth and correcting ourselves when we make mistakes and promoting other people that have the message that we want to get out here and hear something about who is promoting.
I'm not worried about being given any credit.
Promote Jessica Hockett. Promote Mark Kulacz [Housatonic]. Promote Nick Hudson. Promote Jonathan Engler. Promote Heart. Promote CHD. Promote Broken Science Initiative.
And if you can, support me at GigaohmBiological.com. Thank you very much, guys.